Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDERS (SUFFOLK) BILL

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries relating to the County of Suffolk," presented by Mr. Thomas Williams; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills; and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (LYMINGTON) BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Lymington," presented by Mr. Barnes; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills; and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

WALSALL CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order made, by the Minister of Transport under the Walsall Corporation Act, 1925, relating to Walsall Corporation trolley vehicles," presented by Mr. Barnes; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills; and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Houseworkers (Training Centres)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Labour how many training centres have been set up under the National Institute of Houseworkers; what is the total cost to date; how many persons have been awarded certificates of competence in

domestic work; and how many such persons are still believed to be in paid employment as domestic workers.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Robens): The National Institute of Houseworkers runs nine training centres, and has spent about £100,000 in acquiring and equipping them. The cost of running training centres, including the payment of maintenance allowances to the trainees, from 1946 up to the end of March, 1951, was £200,000. The average cost of a training course is about £200. The diploma of the Institute has been awarded to 1,676 persons. Exact statistics are not available as to the number of these who are still in domestic work, but the indications are that it is about 75 per cent. of the total.

Mr. Vane: Is it possible to obtain this diploma without attending a resident course, and how long does the course take? Has it ever been considered that any of these centres might be run in close conjunction with or actually by a voluntary body, such as the W.V.S., to compare whether greater efficiency and economy could be obtained thereby?

Mr. Robens: I assure the hon. Member that the courses are run with the utmost economy and that the results have been very well worth while. The length of time the girls are at the training centres varies a little; it is not a long training. By and large, it has raised the status of domestic workers very considerably.

Miss Irene Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on the whole, women are very well satisfied with the result of this experiment? Is he also aware that we think it would be most regrettable if it were curtailed until we are in a position to judge fully whether, it is justified?

Mr. Robens: I am sure the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) was not suggesting that it should be curtailed, but was wanting some information, which it is right that he should have. I opened the first conference of the Institute, and I was much impressed by their very high standard.

Elderly People, Southampton

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Minister of Labour what information he has as to the number of men over the age of 65 employed in Southampton.

Mr. Robens: Statistics of the numbers of employed men of pensionable age in local areas are not available, and to extract them would involve a disproportionate expenditure of time which would not be justified.

Mr. Morley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that docks and inland waterways at Southampton are compelling men to retire at 65, although they wish to remain at work? As this is contrary to Government policy, will he consult the appropriate trade unions and take some action in the matter?

Mr. Robens: Consultations on this policy of inviting persons to work later than 65 years of age will take place with all the nationalised industries and trade unions concerned.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to look again at the regulations inside his own Department and try to get his own Department to set an example?

Mr. Robens: Certainly. This question raises many problems because we are departing from established customs, but we shall take all the necessary steps to consult the interests concerned to enable those who desire to work longer to do so.

Industries (Redundancy)

Mr. Bevins: asked the Minister of Labour what is his policy towards the problem of redundancy in static and contracting industries; and what steps are being taken to implement it.

Mr. Robens: My policy is to avoid under-employment and so secure the fullest use of the nation's manpower in achieving maximum productivity for exports and for consumption at home whilst carrying out the defence programme. To this end employers are encouraged to give employment exchanges early notice of prospective redundancies, and workers are encouraged through their trade unions to register as long as possible before discharge so that efforts may be made to find other work for them with little or no interval of unemployment. The British Employers' Confederation and Trades Union Congress are co-operating to this end.

Mr. Bevins: In view of the conflict between what the right hon. Gentleman

has said and what actually happens in his own State-run industries, will he bring to the attention of some of his right hon. Friends the reply he has just given?

Mr. Robens: As I stated, discussions on that matter are taking place at the present time.

Safety Regulations

Mr. Bevins: asked the Minister of Labour what percentage of charges against employers for contraventions of safety requirements are made subsequent to and consequent upon the occurrence of an accident.

Mr. Robens: The percentage fluctuates. It was 58 in 1950.

Docks, Liverpool

Mr. Bevins: asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the notice issued by the Port of Liverpool Dock Labour Joint Committee reminding dockers of their responsibilities under agreements; whether this notice was authorised by the National Board; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Robens: The Dock Labour Joint Committee comprising representatives of employers and workers and covering Liverpool and Birkenhead have, in pursuance of the National Agreement of February last, been considering a number of matters relative to the efficient working of the ports and issued a notice on Thursday last informing the men of an agreement that had been reached relative to certain working conditions. The Joint Committee had full authority to deal with these matters, and the notice did not require the authorisation of the National Board. One condition in particular was that men continuing work on a ship should attend at the mustering place at 7.55 a.m. for 8 o'clock start. On Tuesday last a number of men at Birkenhead presented themselves after 7.55 a.m. and were refused permission to start work. This has led to a stoppage which today involves some 1,950 men.
It is apparently contended, on behalf of the men involved, that they should not be required to muster before starting time, but I understand that the earlier time for mustering is essential if work is to commence punctually. In refusing to comply with the requirement the men are in


breach of agreement. The basis of their contract with the employers is that in return for a guaranteed four hours' pay the men shall give a full four hours' work if required.
I regret that this dispute should have developed. It is in the common interest of the men and the employers operating in the port that work on ships should proceed with all possible speed and that delays and losses due to unpunctuality and bad time-keeping should be eradicated. Refusal to co-operate in reasonable measures to this end cannot be justified. A continuation of this stoppage will only mean unnecessary loss to all concerned at a time when, in the public interest, smooth working at our ports is essential.

Mr. Bevins: In view of the continual and protracted friction existing at Liverpool, Birkenhead and Manchester Docks, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that now is the time to try to get at the bottom of these troubles and recast the whole basis of the National Dock Labour Scheme?

Mr. Robens: As the hon. Gentleman will perhaps recollect, a sub-committee of inquiry was set up to go into the whole question of conditions at the docks. I think we should await that report before we make up our minds.

Major Guy Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the great length of the reply, which I do not for a moment dispute was necessary, would it not have been better if the Minister had dealt with this at the end of Questions?

Mr. Speaker: Not in this case, because the facts of a dispute should be made public. I do not think it is a waste of time.

Major Lloyd: I said "at the end of Questions," Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There are Private Notice Questions coming then, and we are limited in time as there is an important debate to follow.

Mr. Keenan: Is the Minister aware that the local position is somewhat aggravated by the fact that over a long period of years the employers themselves have not initiated some measure of discipline on the lines now suggested? Is he also aware that this position is being aggravated even by Questions of this kind, and by what appears in some of the

Press? For instance, the "Daily Express" of last Monday was disgraceful; it was simply trying to stimulate the dockers not to work under the new conditions.

Mr. Robens: I am certain that no hon. Gentleman would want in this House to make conditions such that a peaceful settlement of these disputes would be impossible.

Stoppages, London Docks (Report)

Mr. Mellish: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet received the Report of the Leggett Committee which was established to investigate the problem of stoppages of work in the London Docks.

Mr. Robens: Yes, Sir. The Report is now in the hands of the printers and will be published as a Command Paper as soon as possible.

Mr. Mellish: Will my right hon. Friend be quite certain that he discusses the effect of this Report with both the employers and the Trades Union Congress? I do not know whether he has seen the Report, but could he let us know if there is likely to be any legislation required and, if so, what he proposes to do about that?

Mr. Robens: Yes, I received the Report a day or two ago and have read it. I think it would be wrong for me to comment on it until I have had an opportunity to give it really careful consideration.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is it the intention of my right hon. Friend to institute a similar kind of inquiry into dock stoppages elsewhere than in London?

Mr. Robens: I think that when the House sees this Report, Members will find in it sufficient to indicate that acceptance of the bulk of the recommendations might play a great part in bringing peace to all the dock areas throughout the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLASS Z RESERVE (MEDICAL EXAMINATION)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour what remedy is available to a Class Z Reservist who is dissatisfied with the result of his medical examination prior to call-up.

Mr. Robens: My Department is always prepared to consider a request for reconsideration provided it is supported by additional medical evidence.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend take immediate action in the case of which he was given details a few days ago, the case of a disabled ex-prisoner of war pensioner living in Brixton who has to wear a surgical belt for a displaced spinal disc and is now under canvas in a heavy antiaircraft unit in Cornwall? Will the Minister arrange for this man to be sent back at once and find out what kind of medical board passed him as fit for training?

Mr. Robens: I will certainly look into an individual case of that kind, but the fact is that medical boards are set up to examine these men and they come to a certain decision. If the man's own medical practitioner thinks it is not a right one on medical grounds, and will give the man a certificate to say so and that certificate is handed to the office which calls up the man, we will deal with the case immediately it arises. No hon. Member need fear that we shall not deal with cases expeditiously to prevent men who are physically unfit and who for one reason or another have got through a medical board, from having to serve.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is not an isolated case, and that a constituent of mine in receipt of a disability pension for disability aggravated by war service has been certified as fit for training? Would it not be better if the medical board were given authority to accept the advice of the man's own medical practitioner at the time of call-up? In this case, when the offer of medical evidence was made, it was refused.

Mr. Robens: I do not see how we can do that if we have a medical board. Surely they are competent to examine the case of an individual and to make a decision? It may well be that from time to time, when very large numbers are beginning to flow through in a very short period, some errors will arise, but if hon. Members will either bring them to my attention or use the method I have described, we will deal with them. I do not think anyone need worry that undue anxiety will be occasioned by the decisions finally reached.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Teachers (Union Membership)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Education by which education authorities the closed shop principle is applied; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): I have no information that any local education authority is now making membership of a trade union or professional organisation an operative condition of appointment to its teaching service.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman has taken no steps to find out, or does he mean that he has not been voluntarily informed by local authorities on this point?

Mr. Tomlinson: It means what I said, that I have no information on this point other than I have given.

Mr. George Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the condition of non-membership of a political party is a variation of the closed shop principle?

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not inquire into those things either.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Education if he will make a statement on the Durham County Council's decision not to make any educational appointments until further matters have been cleared up; and what answer has been sent to the request that he should preside over a meeting between the council and the National Union of Teachers.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have seen reports in the Press to this effect, but I should prefer not to make a statement. There is to be a meeting next week between representatives of the Durham Local Education Authority and of the teachers' organisations, at which I have agreed to take the chair.

Miss Ward: Is the Minister aware that a public statement has been made that the emergency committee gave the assurance to the right hon. Gentleman only in order to obtain the essential interview; and will the right hon. Gentleman, after he has presided at the meeting or during the proceedings, make it perfectly plain


that the committee ought to play the game by the right hon. Gentleman in the same way as we feel the right hon. Gentleman is trying to play the game by the teachers?

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not see that that needs an answer. If the committee will read the hon. Lady's Question and will follow the advice I have given, that will satisfy me.

University Awards

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Education how many local education authorities have announced their intention of giving university awards to all students in their area who are accepted by a university or university college for the session 1951.

Mr. Tomlinson: None: but 33 authorities have already adopted the procedure which I have recommended under which awards are offered to students who have been accepted by a university, have been recommended by them to have an award and have reached the advanced standard in two subjects in the examination for the General Certificate of Education.

Mr. Morley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in order to obtain the 19,850 entries to the universities this year which are necessary, local authorities will have to increase their awards from 8,850 last year to 9,650 this year, an increase of 800? Would it not be better to increase the State scholarships to 2,800 and so relieve local finances?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, I do not accept the implication in the figures which have been given. I would like to go into them. The latter suggestion is just impossible at this stage.

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Education the total expenditure of local education authorities in the years 1948, 1949 and 1950, respectively, on incidental expenses for four year university students, and the extension of major awards to intending teachers for the year of professional training, respectively.

Mr. Tomlinson: As the answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the Table:

EXPENDITURE BY LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES ON ASSISTANCE TO STUDENTS IN DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION

1. Incidental expenses of students in the Departments of Education of Universities and University Colleges.

Academic Year
1948–49
…
£49,164


Academic Year
1949–50
…
£63,679

2. Awards to intending teachers for the postgraduate year of professional training.

Academic Year
1948–49
…
£40,112


Academic Year
1949–50
…
£48,285

3. Loans made to students in the Departments of Education.

Academic Year
1948–49
…
£1,707


Academic Year
1949–50
…
£203

Notes: (a) In 1 and 3 above it is not possible to give separate figures for four-year students and one-year (postgraduate) students.

(b) Figures for the Academic Year 1950–51 are not yet available.

Teachers (Military Service)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Education what provision he intends to make to ensure that no intending teacher, otherwise eligible for aid under the teachers' training grant scheme, which he has recently withdrawn, is prevented from obtaining assistance to complete his university training solely on the grounds that he elected to undertake his military service before entering a university.

Mr. Tomlinson: A student in this position can apply to his local education authority for an award, and I have drawn the attention of all local education authorities to the fact that their provision for university awards must in future cover some candidates who would hitherto have been receiving four year grants under the Training of Teachers Grant Regulations.

Mr. Vane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply affords really no safeguard? It puts the responsibility on the local education authority, which may or may not do this. Cannot the Minister give a definite assurance that where two young men of the same age are both intending to become teachers, one of whom elects to go to the university first and to postpone his National Service and the other elects to do his National Service first, the latter will not be precluded from going to the university and following the profession of his choice solely because he chooses to do his National Service first?

Mr. Tomlinson: The conditions concerning the man who elects to do his National Service first have been changed. The abolition of the four year grants of necessity throws upon the local authority, the State having made up to 2,000 grants, the need for making provision for these people, and in the majority of cases they will do so. It is not a watertight guarantee, but I think it will meet 99 per cent. of the cases.

Mr. Vane: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to deny to possible teachers a university education and the following of their profession solely because they choose to do their National Service first, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter again on the Adjournment at an early date.

Local Authorities (Pool Scheme)

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Education how many local education committees have not yet adopted the pool scheme recommended by the Burnham Committee in their recent report; and whether any of these authorities have signified their intention not to introduce such a scheme.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have no information on these points. I have not asked local education authorities to what extent they propose to exercise their discretion to incur expenditure on teachers' salaries that would be chargeable to the area pool.

Commander Maitland: Will the Minister consider making inquiries, because my information is that certain local authorities will not adopt this proposal?

Mr. Tomlinson: I will look into the position when the scheme has been running a little longer and see what are their intentions.

Grammar Schools (Leaving Age)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the increasing number of children who leave grammar schools on reaching the age of 15 years; and if he will introduce legislation whereby parents accepting grammar school places for their children will under take to keep them at school until the age of 16 years.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am well aware of this problem. I do not think, however,

that it is one which can profitably be dealt with by legislation. The latest figures do not show any increase in the percentages of pupils leaving grant-aided grammar schools before the age of 16.

Dr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when a child takes up a place in a grammar school and does not complete the course, some other child is deprived of grammar school education, and that the child suffers and education suffers? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that in various parts of the country these numbers are increasing, and will he give some attention to this serious matter?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have been giving attention to it. The situation which my hon. Friend describes has always been with us. A change is taking place because of the freeing of secondary education all round.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can my right hon. Friend give the figures or percentages involved?

Mr. Tomlinson: The percentage of pupils leaving grant-aided grammar schools before the age of 16 are as follow: 1948–49: boys, 23.4; girls, 26.0; 1949–50: boys, 22.4; girls, 25.0. That leaves out of account, however, all those who were in the secondary modern schools.

Mr. Awbery: Can my right hon. Friend make it an offence for an employer to offer a job to a boy or girl who has not completed his or her term in a grammar school?

Mr. Slater: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is sufficient autonomy for the education authorities to deal with this matter, and would he not agree that it would be wrong to interfere with such powers?

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-PRISONERS OF WAR, JAPAN (COMPENSATION)

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations have been made to Commonwealth Governments on the subject of securing compensation from Japan for the ill-treatment of prisoners of war; to which Commonwealth Governments have such representations been made; and what replies have been received to date.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): The United Kingdom Government have for some considerable time been exchanging views with Commonwealth Governments on all questions, of which this is one, arising in the general context of the Japanese Peace Treaty. Such exchanges of views between Commonwealth Governments are confidential, and it would be contrary to the established practice for me to disclose what particular views have been expressed.

Mr. Braine: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that precisely because the House has not yet been told how far advanced are the negotiations for a Japanese peace treaty, there is anxiety lest the Government fail to prepare and present a claim for compensation from the Japanese when a peace treaty is about to be negotiated? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore expedite these consultations and impress upon his colleagues the urgency of the matter?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: The consultations could not be expedited, because they are going on all the time. The hon. Member would be well advised to await what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will say in reply to the debate tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (UNITED KINGDOM PENSIONERS)

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he has yet received full details from the Government of India about the deduction of Indian tax on pensions paid to residents in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Yes, Sir. Instructions now received from the Government of India are in accordance with the summary referred to in my reply to the hon. Member on 17th April. There are, however, certain points of detail that still remain to be settled. I hope that discussions with the Indian authorities on these points will take place shortly.

Mr. Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman make absolutely sure during the course of the discussions that as a result of this new decision none of these pensioners will suffer more tax than they have had to pay previously under the old arrangements?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I do not think I can give that assurance. The assurance which I can give is that we will make sure that they only pay just tax and that full allowance is made under the double taxation agreement which we have with India.

Major Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind and approach sympathetically the extreme difficulty which many ex-Indian Army officers and soldiers living in the Channel Islands are facing in this problem, and will he do his very best to look after their interests?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Yes, Sir. That is a complicated matter which I have under consideration.

Mr. Wakefield: Are these pensions paid from Indian revenues?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Remnant: Is it not a fact that these men pay both Indian and United Kingdom Income Tax?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Not at the moment; but that will be the ease. Where that is so, the agreement we have already made with the Indian Government about double taxation will operate. Concessions will be made in United Kingdom Income Tax.

Mr. Keeling: Does the Minister not agree that these pensioners, who have received no compensation for the higher cost of living, will feel, and will have the right to feel, very badly let down if they have to pay any more taxation?

Mr. Low: Is it not a fact that the result of the present double taxation arrangements and the present rates of Indian income tax is to impose the greatest hardship upon the small pensioner? Will the Minister not do something for the benefit of the small pensioner?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: As far as the small pensioner is concerned, the tax, I think, will not be greater. The pension will not attract United Kingdom Income Tax, for example.

Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether Royal Warrant pensions charged to Indian revenues and pensions paid


from funds established for the dependants of servants of the former Government of India will, in future, be paid after deduction of Indian tax.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Royal Warrant pensions are a direct charge on Indian revenues and will in future be issued after deduction of Indian tax. Pensions in issue from funds such as the hon. Gentleman refers to are being paid without deduction pending clarification of the position.

Mr. Low: Are not these Royal Warrant pensions very small ones, and are they not in most cases paid to widows? Is it not the case that at present these pensions do not attract British Income Tax, and that there will be no measure of unilateral double taxation to meet because there is no British Income Tax from which they can be relieved? Must not these people suffer great hardship as a result?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Most of the pensions are certainly small, and most of them are paid to widows. Where they are small and the only source of income they do not attract United Kingdom Income Tax. Of course, where they are small they will also attract no Indian income tax, or very little.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is any incentive being offered to these pensioners to encourage them to go on working?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Sulphuric Acid

Mr. Fort: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is prepared temporarily to exempt imported sulphuric-acid from paying a 10 per cent. ad valorem duty in order to reduce the price to the British consumer and facilitate the transport of imported sulphuric acid from the ports to the consumer.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Hartley Shawcross): The question of relieving imported sulphuric acid from the charge of 10 per cent. general ad valorem duty is under consideration. I hope it will be possible to reach a decision on this question in the near future.

Mr. John Lewis: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether he has under consideration at the same time the

exemption from ad valorem duty of other vital raw materials which have to be imported——

Mr. Speaker: The Question is about sulphuric acid.

Board of Trade

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade of what persons the Board of Trade is composed; and on what date it is last recorded that it met.

Sir H. Shawcross: I must apologise for the length of this answer. The Board is a Committee of the Privy Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations, appointed by an Order in Council of 23rd August, 1786. The members of that Committee appointed by that Order in Council were as follow:

The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury,
The first Lord Commissioner of the Treasury,
The first Lord Commissioner of the Admiralty,
His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State,
The Chancellor and Under Treasurer of the Exchequer, and
The Speaker of the House of Commons; such members of the Privy Council as hold any of the following offices, namely:
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,
The Pay Master or Pay Masters General of His Majesty's Forces,
The Treasurer of His Majesty's Navy, and
The Master of His Majesty's Mint.
The Speaker of the House of Commons of Ireland and such members of the Privy Council as hold office in the Kingdom of Ireland; and
Ten named persons.
The Right Hon. Lord Hawkesbury was appointed President.

The present members of the Board of Trade are the President and the holders, if members of the Privy Council, of such of the offices referred to as still exist. The last recorded meeting of the Board, as a collective entity, was on 23rd December, 1850, but I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman—the then President of the Board of Trade on 15th March, 1901, when he said:
The Board of Trade does meet. The quorum consists of one person—myself.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a predecessor of his in 1923 replied


that there was no record of the Board of Trade ever having met? Can he tell the House what future is contemplated for this distinguished body?

Sir H. Shawcross: I am considering the possibility of calling a meeting of the Board specially in connection with the Festival of Britain.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman remind himself of what was said of the Board at the time of its inception, namely:
These high officials, all agree,
Are grossly overpaid.
There never was a Board, and now
There isn't any Trade.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the reply of my right hon. and learned Friend show how old and well-established was the principle of governmental responsibility for trade, and how for over 100 years that principle was neglected by all previous Governments until the Government of 1945?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Do the provisions of Clause 32 of the present Finance Bill and other recent provisions, compelling directors of offending bodies to prove their innocence apply to this Board; and, if it does, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the concern with which his answer to Question No. 36 is expected in many quarters?

Mr. Henry Strauss: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the poem which has been slightly misquoted was not written at the inception of the Board but in far more recent years by Sir Alan Herbert?

Fibres

Mr. Vane: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent fibre made from wood is now being manufactured in or imported into this country as material to blend with wool for clothing.

Sir H. Shawcross: I assume the hon. Member is referring to rayon staple fibre. Production of this fibre has been affected in recent months by the shortage of sulphur and amounted to 37.3 million lb. in the first quarter of this year, compared with 42.2 million lb. in the corresponding period of last year. Imports in the first quarter amounted to 322,000 lb. this year,

compared with 586,000 lb. in the first quarter of last year. This material is used either alone or in blends with natural fibres such as cotton and wool. In the first quarter of this year the wool industry consumed 7.6 million lb. of rayon staple fibre and waste, compared with 2.6 million lb. in the corresponding period of 1950; this represents 5 per cent. of all fibres consumed in the wool industry. No figures are available showing how much of these blended yarns is used for clothing, but the great bulk of them would be so used.

Mr. Vane: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that information, but I meant other fibres less well known than rayon made from wood. If I put down another Question, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me that information?

Sir H. Shawcross: I will do my best to answer any Question that the hon. Member puts down.

Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the cloth made from the fibre made from wood is described as "woollen cloth?"

Sir H. Shawcross: No, Sir. I should want notice of that.

Mr. Osborne: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is no satisfactory substitute for wool in cloth? Is he aware that the price of wool yarn has dropped in the last few weeks from 32s. 6d. a lb. to 25s.——

Mr. Speaker: The price of wool yarn does not come into the Question at all.

Rayon and Cotton (Exports)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will review the licensing of exports of rayon and cotton yarns in view of the shortage of these yarns for looms in Lancashire.

Sir H. Shawcross: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies given to the hon. Members for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) and for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) on 12th April, and to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) on 19th April. I may add that exports of spun rayon yarns will be controlled by an order coming into force on 14th May.

Colonel Hutchison: While I realise the complications of the Question, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the cloth in the piece earns more currency than do the yarns which go to compose it? Has he had any representations from the British Rayon Federation on the question?

Sir H. Shawcross: The whole matter is in course of consideration and discussion now with the industry. I will certainly bear in mind the point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman makes.

Newsprint

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much extra newsprint he expects to have available as a result of the new British development for making pulp for newsprint from raw materials at present going to waste.

Sir H. Shawcross: If the hon. and gallant Member has production from sugar cane in mind, I would refer him to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) on 3rd May. I should, of course, be glad to see any new and economic source of newsprint developed.

Wing Commander Bullus: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that on 24th April the President of the Newspaper Society spoke of a new source of development of which he had great hopes? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House any details of that new source, or can he tell us what is the present newsprint position in regard to newspapers?

Sir H. Shawcross: I am afraid that I have no information to give the House about the statement made by the President of the Newspaper Society, of which I am, of course, aware. At the moment I can only say that the newsprint situation is one of great difficulty and stringency.

Mr. Nally: In discussing whatever use may be made of newsprint accruing from new processes, will my right hon. and learned Friend make representations to the President of the Newspaper Society pointing out the undesirability of using newsprint for literary efforts like "The Passionate Poet" and columns of football pool permutation tips?

Mr. Crouch: Will the President of the Board of Trade give the necessary encouragement for the development of the new process in this country?

Sir H. Shawcross: I should like to have further information first about what really is the new process.

Commonwealth Imports and Exports

Mr. Nigel Fisher: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain and take steps to arrest the decline both in imports from, and exports to, the Commonwealth, which took place in the United Kingdom's trade with the Commonwealth in the year 1950, as compared with 1949.

Sir H. Shawcross: The value of United Kingdom trade with Commonwealth countries, far from declining last year, was higher than in any year since the end of the war or indeed compared with any earlier years. Exports and re-exports to Commonwealth countries in 1950 amounted to £1,064 million compared with £920 million in 1949. Imports in 1950 were £1,116 million compared with £1,031 million in 1949.

Mr. Fisher: We are, of course, all aware that the money value in volume of all trade has increased, but is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that as a percentage of our total trade, our Commonwealth trade has declined in every category? Does he regard that as satisfactory? Is his policy Imperial Preference, and how far is he prepared to take steps to maintain and increase it? Am I am not entitled to a reply?

Sir Herbert Williams: Do the figures given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman include exports to Eire and Burma as part of the Commonwealth, as they did before the war?

Sir H. Shawcross: No, Sir.

Major Legge-Bourke: Although the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there has been an increase in the total value may be true, will he bear in mind that it disguises the fact that there has been a decline in individual cases? Does he not agree that there should be an increase all round?

Sir H. Shawcross: There may well have been a decline in various individual cases.


My desire would be to see a general increase in all cases. There has been a general increase all round. It is, of course, true—the point was made by another hon. Member—that the volume of our trade with other countries has also increased and the percentage position has slightly changed.

Mr. Poole: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the very firm stand recently taken at Torquay is probably the greatest single factor in the maintenance of our Commonwealth trade?

Imports from China

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the imports from China for the first quarter of this year; and whether they included strategic materials.

Sir H. Shawcross: For figures of principal imports from China in the first quarter of this year, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on Tuesday last. The only strategic material included was tungsten ore to the amount of four tons.

Exports to China

Mr. Blackburn: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total estimated value in pounds sterling of all goods supplied to China by the United Kingdom and the Colonies during the first nine months after the commencement of the Korean war.

Sir H. Shawcross: United Kingdom exports to China during the nine months July, 1950, to March, 1951, inclusive were approximately £4 million. Exports in the same period from Hong Kong to China were £103 million; exports from July, 1950, to February, 1951, from Malaya to China were £20.5 million; exports from other colonial territories to China were negligible.

Mr. Blackburn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now be kind enough to withdraw his denial of the statement I made earlier this week that the exports from this country and the Colonies to China were over £100 million? Is he aware that the figures were very much larger than the ones

which he has given because of the indirect exports which have gone to China? Will he now withdraw his denial?

Mr. Bossom: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say if the figures he has given include £1 million worth of rubber which left Singapore for Hong Kong and Canton on 10th May this year?

Sir H. Shawcross: I am not aware of £1 million worth of rubber leaving Hong Kong on 10th May, but I will look into the matter. I will look into the matter, but the figures I have given do not purport to cover today's date.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Has my right hon. and learned Friend any comparable figures to show how much was exported to China from Japan and the U.S.A. during the same period?

Sir H. Shawcross: That is another question.

Mr. Blackburn: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a misstatement of fact to the House, which is recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT and in the newspapers, does he not think that when it is proved—and he has admitted it—to be wrong he ought at least to apologise to the House?

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many tons of tinplate have been exported to China in the last three years; how many tons have returned to the United Kingdom in the form of containers of other imports; and if, in view of the shortage in the home fruit and vegetable canning industry, he will stop all further exports of tinplate to countries engaged in hostilities against Britain and her Allies.

Sir H. Shawcross: United Kingdom exports of tinplate to China were:




Tons


1948
…
2,200


1949
…
500


1950
…
1,600


1951 (1st quarter)
…
600


I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food that he is satisfied that the tonnage of tinplate required to pack frozen eggs and liquid eggs and egg products imported into this country from China is not less than the tonnage of tin-plate exported to China for that purpose,


The tonnage of tinplate involved is not large, and I do not in present circumstances feel that this trade should be stopped.

Major Legge-Bourke: While it cannot be much, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the amounts which he has given for the last three years would have insured at least, had they been kept in this country, that the home horticulture industry would not have wasted a great deal of its crops, as it had to do, entirely owing to the shortage of tinplate.

Factory (Nantlle Valley)

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade why there is continued delay in erecting the proposed new factory in the Nantlle Valley, Caernarvonshire.

Sir H. Shawcross: The responsibility for the erection of this factory does not lie with the Board of Trade but with the Gwyrfai Rural District Council. I am aware of the fact that there have been a number of difficulties, some of which could not have been foreseen, which have delayed this project, but I hope that the council have now overcome them. I will gladly consider any request for further help.

Tariff Conference, Torquay (White Paper)

Mr. David Griffiths: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a further statement about the results of the tariff negotiations recently concluded at Torquay.

Sir H. Shawcross: As the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was informed on 5th April, the Governments participating in the Conference agreed that the release of the detailed results of the tariff negotiations at Torquay should be held over until 9th May. I have, therefore, arranged for a White Paper (Cmd. 8228) to be available in the Vote Office this afternoon. This contains a short description of the scope and purpose of these negotiations and an appraisement of the their results so far as the United Kingdom is concerned.
The tariff schedules embodying the new maximum tariff rates which have been

agreed upon are not reproduced in the White Paper on account of their bulk. They will be published on 12th May by the United Nations, and I am arranging for copies to be available in the Library from 15th May. Trade associations and others interested will be able to obtain copies through His Majesty's Stationery Office in the usual way.
Should the House wish to discuss the results of this Conference, I have no doubt that arrangements could be made through the usual channels.
Our intention is to lay before the House such measures, either a Clause in the Finance Bill or Treasury Orders mainly under the Import Duties Act, as appropriate, to implement the concessions in the United Kingdom tariff which involve alterations in the current rates of duty. It is also our intention that any reduction in duty should come into effect on 1st September. As regards the reductions in tariff rates which have been conceded by other countries, traders will be informed through the Board of Trade Journal as and when the participating countries implement the concessions listed in their schedules.
I appreciate that traders and others will wish to have the information about these tariff changes before they are actually put into force. Arrangements have, therefore, been made for copies of the tariff schedules to be available for consultation at certain chambers of commerce, at the offices of the national trade and industrial organisations and at the regional offices of the Board of Trade. Further details of where reference copies of the tariff schedules may be consulted are being given in this week's edition of the Board of Trade Journal.

Major Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in spite of the agreement not to reveal the details until 9th May, it is understood that in several other countries considerable information, which is apparently accurate, is available? Is that true, and is the right hon. Gentleman going to do anything about it?

Sir H. Shawcross: We ourselves have sought to stick to the understanding. I think the matter might have become the subject of publication last night, but this is my first opportunity of answering Questions in the House about it.

Statutory Instrument No. 413

Sir H. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the subject of an Indemnity Bill in respect of the failure to lay properly Statutory Instrument No. 413.

Sir H. Shawcross: The Speaker's Ruling, although in terms only relating to Statutory Instrument No. 413, appeared to concern a great many others since that Instrument was laid in accordance with a practice initiated as long ago as 1943. As a result, legal questions arose which, although largely academic, were of great complexity and doubt. My immediate predecessor was advised by the then Attorney-General that in all the circumstances the proper course was to put them beyond doubt by legislation. I do not feel disposed to differ from the advice so given, and a Bill will be presented in due course.

Sir H. Williams: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman able to say when the Bill is likely to be laid.

Sir H. Shawcross: No, I am afraid I cannot say exactly when the Bill will be laid. Some of the questions are a little complicated, but we hope to have the Bill quite shortly. I shall consult the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) in regard to its contents before it is introduced.

Oral Answers to Questions — WILD BIRDS (PROTECTION)

Mr. John Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the report made to him by the committee under the chairmanship of Lord Ilchester in regard to the proposed suggestions on the alterations of the laws to protect wild birds.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 12th April to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish).

Mr. Morrison: Before the Home Secretary puts forward any legislation, will he consult with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and also the appropriate agricultural bodies who are not represented on that particular advisory committee?

Mr. Ede: Yes, I will see that appropriate consultations take place.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Pay

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the recommendations of Part II of the Oaksey Report, relating to the setting up of a Whitley Council and future methods of negotiations, will be implemented; and, as any increases of pay have been deferred until this Council has been constituted, if he will take steps to establish it immediately.

Lieut.-Colonel Gurney Braithwaite: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make regulations implementing the recommendations set out in Part II of the Oaksey Report, 1949.

Mr. Ede: The detailed measures which would be needed to give effect to the recommendations of the Oaksey Committee are being examined in consultation with the various interests concerned, but these discussions have shown that there are differences of opinion about some important aspects of the proposed scheme, and I am not in a position to say when those differences will be resolved.
As regards the second part of the Question, I do not think that consideration of the representations which have recently been made by the Police Federation on the question of pay need of necessity be deferred until a new negotiating system has been established, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are now considering the possibility of making some interim arrangement to enable the claims of the two federations to be brought to an issue at an early date.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that it is 18 months since Part II of this Report was made public, and the men in the Forces are under the impression that the Whitley Council must be set up before wage negotiations can take place? Will he hurry it on?

Mr. Ede: I do not think the Central Committee of the Police Federation hold that view. It will not be possible to set up the body that is suggested, because the various participating bodies are not in agreement, but I am hoping to get a not dissimilar body that can be given the power to proceed.

Mrs. Braddock: In view of the reply which my right hon. Friend gave me about three weeks ago, about the date of the Police Council meeting, can he say whether the date has been fixed on which the Police Council will meet?

Mr. Ede: I am hoping to meet the Police Council on this matter in the course of a few days.

Mr. Awbery: Can my right hon. Friend say whether wage negotiations can take place before the setting up of the Whitley Council?

Mr. Ede: The Police Council is a very old and well-established body. This is a piece of negotiating machinery within a new scheme, which would require legislation.

Bristol (Strength)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the police force at Bristol is undermanned; and if there has been any improvement in recruiting since the increase in pay which became operative in July, 1949.

Mr. Ede: I am informed that on 30th April, 1951, the force was 236 men and five women short of its authorised establishment of 814 men and 20 women. Since the July, 1949, pay increase, the net increase in the actual strength of the force was 26.

Mr. Awbery: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is sufficient incentive in the wages to bring the necessary men and the kind of men we want into the force?

Mr. Ede: The application of Oaksey Award has had very differing results in different forces. Some are up to strength; some have come up to strength since the award; and others have not yet come up to strength. While I do not deny that the pay question is one of the things that keeps the police force under establishment in certain areas, it is not the only issue that is involved.

Metropolitan Police Fund (Accounts)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when copies of accounts of the Metropolitan

Police Fund will be available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Ede: The accounts were presented on 1st May and are available in the Library. Since 1942 it has not been the practice to print them, and, in the absence of a general desire on the part of the House that the pre-war practice of printing them should be resumed, I am reluctant in the interests of economy to resume it.

Sir H. Williams: As this service costs the Exchequer many millions of pounds a year, and as the document in the Library is very difficult to understand, being partly written in by hand and partly typed, does the Home Secretary not think that we ought to be treated with more respect?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police has the greatest respect for this House, and particularly for the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNTY COUNCILLORS (JURY SERVICE)

Miss Hornsby-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to grant to members of all other county councils the same exemption from jury service which already applies to all members of the London County Council and to all members of any municipal corporation of any borough, so far as it relates to a jury summoned to serve within the area of their county.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. The claims of county councillors for exemption from jury service cannot be considered in isolation from the claims of other classes of persons, and time is not at present available for comprehensive legislation on this topic.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the burden of public service carried out by members of large local authorities who do not enjoy the privilege enjoyed by members of the London County Council, is certainly as great and as much a burden on their time as are the duties carried out by members of small borough authorities who enjoy this privilege?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir, I think this matter wants to be looked at on quite a comprehensive basis, because we would only be increasing the number of anomalies if we had piecemeal legislation.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Home Secretary aware that, having regard to the vital importance of juries in the British system of justice and the need for maintaining their composition at a very high level, there will be widespread support for his reluctance to deprive juries of the valuable service and experience of men who serve on local authorities?

Mr. S. Silverman: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when this House was considering the Bill by which special juries were abolished, the promise was given that early opportunity would be taken to review all the anomalies of the liabilities and rights of jury service; and can he say whether any steps are contemplated in that direction?

Mr. Ede: I am collecting the various anomalies that exist, and when I have them complete, I will endeavour to see whether it is possible to make proposals to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCARCE MATERIALS (ALLOCATION)

Mr. David Eccles: asked the Prime Minister whether the duties of the inter-Departmental Committee which allocates scarce materials, include the screening of the requirements of the Supply Departments; and if he will make a statement on the relation of this committee to the Lord Privy Seal's Department.

Sir H. Shawcross: I have been asked to reply.
A Bill will be needed to establish the new Department. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will make a full statement on the Second Reading in which he will cover the matters referred to in the Question, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would ask the hon. Member to await that statement.

Mr. Eccles: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to consider the need to give the Lord Privy Seal power to scrutinise the requirements of the Supply Departments, because, supposing the Air Ministry put forward a demand for bombs, as they

did in the war, which called for far more steel than was advisable, and would make damaging cuts in other parts of the defence programme, who has the power to persuade the Air Ministry in a case like that to moderate their demands?

Sir H. Shawcross: We hope that the arrangements in regard to the responsibility for allocations will be such as will permit an efficient allocation between the Supply Departments and industry generally. The point that the right hon. Member has raised will certainly be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE AND WORLD PROBLEMS

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Prime Minister if he will call a full Empire Conference of Dominion and Colonial representatives immediately to discuss world and Empire problems.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. There was a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London in January of this year, and, having regard to the many demands on the time of Prime Ministers, it would be quite impracticable to hold another meeting so soon.

Wing Commander Bullus: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the exigencies of the moment demand such a conference? Does he not think that it would be a gracious gesture to invite such representatives here for Festival year?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: No, Sir, I do not agree. I think it is important that the Prime Ministers' meeting should be held reasonably often when there is proper cause for it, and when all the Prime Ministers are in agreement.

Air Commodore Harvey: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House to what extent raw materials were discussed at the conference in January?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I would like to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY POWER CUTS

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement about the recent electric power cuts.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): Yes, Sir. There have been power cuts of varying intensity in different parts of the country during the last few days.
There have been three main causes. The first is the great increase in the demand for electricity. In the first four months of this year the British Electricity Authority sent out 14 per cent. more electricity than in the corresponding period a year ago. The second is the large proportion of generating capacity—no less than 28 per cent.—which has been out of commission, mainly owing to the necessary summer overhaul and maintenance work, and to the temporary breakdown of plant. The third is the exceptionally cold weather which we have had this week. It is estimated that in April and May a drop of I degree Fahrenheit in the temperature may increase the national load by about 100 megawatts. On Monday and Tuesday of this week the maximum temperature at Kew was 12 degrees below the normal.
I need not say how much the Government regret the loss and inconvenience which power cuts may cause.

Mr. Lloyd: In view of the serious and rather depressing character of the Minister's statement, is it not unfortunate, from the point of view of production, that it was only on Monday of last week that the Minister announced concessions for the introduction of standby plant into the factories, which could help so much to mitigate these difficulties?

Mr. Noel-Baker: These concessions were announced in January, and I added on Monday that the British Electricity Authority were in consultation with the delegation of the Federation of British Industries.

Mr. Lloyd: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that, following the fuel and power crisis in 1947, the Ministry of Supply launched a £10 million scheme for the introduction of standby generators in the factories, and that owing to the failure of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to make the necessary arrangements, a surplus of these generators was exported to Soviet Russia to the extent of £4 million in the last two years?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It was found that oil was even more difficult to obtain than other forms of fuel.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the figure of generating capacity out of use for recommissioning in the average May before the war, or the figure before nationalisation, corresponding to the 28 per cent. he announced just now? How much, has he been informed, has unsuitable coal affected the question?

Mr. Noel-Baker: On the last point, the answer is: "A very small amount indeed." On the first question, the outage—[HON. MEMBERS: "The what?"]—"outage," the amount of capacity out of use, according to the jargon used in the electricity industry—due to overhaul and breakdown is certainly greater than it was before the war. Maintenance is about the same, in proportion, and must be carried out between the months of April and September. Normally, it does not cause power cuts, and but for the exceptionally cold weather would not have done so now, and but for the great increase in the demand for electricity.
The amount of breakdown is heavier, for three reasons. First, because the B.E.A. have to use a great deal of old plant which they took over and which is liable to breakdown. Secondly, because the new plant is having heavy teething troubles. Thirdly, and owing to the great demand, a lot of the plant has to be run continuously, which previously would not have been the case.

Mr. Fort: Are not the troubles caused by the installation of novel and untried steam-raising and generating equipment?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir, not that I am aware of, but the breakdown is heavier than it used to be.

Mr. Chetwynd: Was not there a considerable extension of electricity generating capacity, and was not the recent load-shedding caused, in the main, by the domestic demand?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Generating capacity increased last year by 965 megawatts, which is 30 per cent. more than in the highest pre-war year. It will increase this


year by somewhere between 1,050 megawatts and 1,100 megawatts. None of the new stations has yet come in this year. In the domestic demand, the electric fire is certainly a very potent cause of power cuts, but the industrial demand is the demand which is increasing most.

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to interfere or to restrict Members in any way, but I might point out that we have the Business Question to come, and that we have a Royal Commission coming on. We have two important debates, and every minute spent now, is really taken away from those important debates.

Earl Winterton: An important question has arisen which I would like to put. It is whether the Minister can give any advice to owners of industrial buildings and hotels on the very serious situation which arose yesterday, during which a number of people were trapped in lifts? This is not very good for the prestige of the country when we have many foreign visitors. On people of nervous disposition or with weak hearts this kind of thing might have a very serious effect. Has the right hon. Gentleman any information on the subject?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is a very difficult matter. It can only be dealt with by getting rid of power cuts, which is what the Government are doing everything they can to achieve.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the Business for the week after the Whitsun Recess?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. The Business will be as follows:

TUESDAY, 29TH MAY—Supply [16th Allotted Day]. Committee. Debate on the Annual Report of the Colonial Development Corporation, 1950.

WEDNESDAY, 30TH MAY—Report and Third Reading of the National Insurance Bill.

Committee stage of the Coal Industry Bill.

THURSDAY, 31ST MAY—Report and Third Reading of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Bill.

FRIDAY, 1ST JUNE—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered:
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'Clock—[Mr. Ede.]

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE)

House, at its rising To-morrow, to adjourn till Tuesday, 29th May.—[Mr. Ede.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[15TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1951–52

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Exports to China for the year ending on 31st March, 1952, namely:



£


Class VI, Vote 1, Board of Trade
…
10


Class II, Vote 9, Colonial Office
…
10


Total
…
£20

Orders of the Day — EXPORTS TO CHINA

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: I hope the Committee will forgive me if I try to look at this topic in its general setting. I am quite sure that justice cannot be done to it in any other way. In November, 1949, I was in favour of the recognition of Communist China, provided that it was de facto and not de jure, or as it would probably be called among the old school tie brigade of the party opposite, "de iure," and provided that it could be brought about as a joint policy with the United States and the Dominions.
The United States had largely disinterested themselves in the civil war in China, and Chiang Kai-shek, who used to be paraded to me in those bygone days of the war as the champion of the new Asia, was being driven off the mainland. I could see no reason why, if we had diplomatic relations with Communist Russia, Communist Poland and other countries inside the Iron Curtain, we could not have them with China. Recognition does not mean approval. One has to recognise and deal with all sorts of things in this world as they come along. After all, vaccination is undoubtedly a definite recognition of smallpox. Certainly I think that it would be very foolish, in ordinary circumstances, not to keep necessary contacts with countries with whom one is not at war.
However, a little later, the Government recognised Communist China, not only

de facto but de jure, and they recognised it as an isolated act, without agreement with the United States or joint action with the Dominions. The date was oddly chosen. I am told that it was three days before the Colombo Conference of Commonwealth Foreign Secretaries. One would have thought that it was a matter that might have been talked over there. The response of the Chinese Communists was very surly. They took all they could get from our recognition and gave nothing in return. They did not even recognise us. The United States were much offended by our isolated action, and that is how that part of the story ends.
Presently, the situation in the Far East was transformed and everything was sharpened by the Communist aggression in Korea, and was presently brought to a much more serious and intense position by the Chinese intervention. When the United Nations definitely passed the resolution, to which His Majesty's Government assented, branding China as an aggressor, we were left in an uncomfortable and illogical position of having diplomatic relations with a Chinese Government formally censured by the United Nations, and which was engaged in attacking United States soldiers—United Nations soldiers—and also our own small contingent in Korea.
There is no doubt that the maintenance of our relationship with Red China had been and has been totally devoid of advantages to us or to the United Nations, and that it became a reproach against us in wide circles in America. This made a bad foundation between us for discussion with the United States about all the vexing questions of trading with the enemy—as the Chinese Communists had undoubtedly become. Of course, it is the first interest of Britain and of Europe, and also, I believe, of the United States, to make some kind of defence front against the at present overwhelming Soviet power on the European Continent, and all of us on both sides of the House saw good and cogent arguments for our not getting too deeply involved in Korea, still less in China.
We on this side, without taking academic views about the 38th Parallel, were most anxious that the United Nations Forces should not go beyond the waist or narrow part of the peninsula and should keep a broad no-man's-land


between their own front and the Yalu River. It did not seem wise to broaden the front by another 200 or 300 miles by emerging from the narrow part of the Korean Peninsula into this much expanded area. As it was the policy of the United Nations and of the United States not to enter Chinese territory or even to bomb beyond the frontier line, it seemed especially dangerous to advance close up to that frontier line. It is always dangerous in war to march or walk close up to a wall without being allowed to look over the other side and see what is going on there, and act against it if necessary.
Therefore, personally, not having an opportunity of obtaining any technical information, I wanted to stop at the waist and have a no-man's-land. I think that there was pretty general agreement on that in the House. However, General MacArthur's forces became heavily involved on a much wider front far beyond the waist, and a series of heavy Chinese counter-attacks were delivered. War was in fact begun on a considerable scale between the United Nations and China without any formal declaration of war on either side; and that is the position that exists today with ever-intensifying gravity.
There is no doubt that the Chinese Communist Government is waging war at Russian instigation and with powerful Soviet aid in weapons and supplies, against the troops of the United Nations. Our recognition and maintenance of diplomatic relations with China has undoubtedly been a cause of misunderstanding with the United States, and has made more difficult the discussion of our other joint problems with them in the Far East. I cannot believe that a policy of appeasement to Chinese Communist aggression will bring about peace with Red China. On the contrary, any form of weakness or indecision or division among the anti-Communist forces will only prolong the fighting and increase its scale. I have ventured to deal with these rather wider aspects this afternoon in order to place the matter objectively before the Committee.
I now wish to consider the position of the United States. I always watch the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, as that is where the weather

comes from. I have an advantage over the Foreign Secretary in being able to keep them directly under my view, whereas if he were to keep his head turned, it might well be thought that he was paying them undue attention. We cannot watch and listen to them without deriving the impression that their sympathies are, on the whole, more with Red China than with the United States. But Red China has been branded as an aggressor by the United Nations with the full assent of the present Socialist Government.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Not with their full assent.

Mr. Churchill: Even those Ministers who have resigned, were members of the Government at the time that decision was taken.
We now know that the Communists are killing United Nations soldiers and our soldiers. We know that they have established a reign of terror in China, with horrible executions and mob butcheries and a merciless purge characteristic of Communist tyranny wherever it is applied, especially in the transitional stages, all over the world. We ought not, I say, to have any sympathies with Red China, and the more they are expressed and manifested in this House, the more harm is done to our relations with the United States. After all, the United States are doing 19/20ths of the work and suffering losses of 50 and 60 to one compared to us. We must try to understand their position.
We really cannot get through life either as individuals or as a State, without trying to put ourselves in the position of others with whom we come in contact and have to deal. The United States have lost nearly 70,000 men, killed, wounded and missing. We know how we feel about the Gloucesters, and that should enable us to measure the feelings of people in the United States, in many cities, towns and villages there, when the news comes in of some one who has lost a dear one in the fighting overseas. Feelings are tense, very dangerous to distress or to disturb. We can measure these American feelings by our own. They also know that they are bearing virtually the whole weight of the Korean war.
Look also at all the money they have given to Europe. Look at the money they have lent or given to our country during the period of Socialist rule. I doubt whether we should have had the Utopia which we enjoy without their aid. Where should we all be without their assistance in Europe? Free Europe is quite incapable of defending itself, and must remain so for several years whatever we do. These considerations must be kept in our minds when we discuss these matters of trade which I consider minor matters, and the different points of friction between us and the United States. What would be our position in this island if Western Europe were overrun as it would be——

Mr. Harold Davies: If we went to war with China.

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member really must learn to cultivate a sense of proportion in the matter. It is not a matter of whether there is a war with China or not but whether there is a rift between Britain and the United States or not. That is the thought that haunts me, and I hope and trust that it will be considered everywhere else. What would be our position, I say, if Europe were overrun, as it would be but for the immense American ascendancy in the atomic bomb, and the deterrent effect, not necessarily upon the Russians but upon the Communist Kremlin regime, of this tremendous weapon? The fact that we are bitterly divided and absorbed in party strife, and kept month after month——

Mr. Ellis Smith: So is America.

Mr. Churchill: Quite true, but they have at any rate a fixed date for their elections. To exist month by month in such an electioneering atmosphere as this, may provide many topics to fill the public mind and what is left of the newspapers, but our external dangers do not diminish meanwhile; they grow continually. It is said that we are getting stronger, but to get stronger does not necessarily mean that we are getting safer. It is only when we are strong enough that safety is achieved; and the period of the most acute danger might well arise just before we were strong enough. I hope that may be pondered upon because it is a very potent and relevant factor.
Our great danger now is in pursuing a policy of girding at the United States and giving them the impression that they are left to do all the work, while we pull at their coat tails and read them moral lessons in statecraft and about the love we all ought to have for China. I would plead in the very short time I beg leave to keep the House this afternoon—because our time is very limited—for a sense of proportion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—yes, on the grounds of national safety and even of survival.
I say that we must think not only of ourselves; we must think of our friends in Europe; of the Norwegians, the Danes, the Dutch, the Belgians, the French and others who lie still nearer to the Soviet Power with its mighty armies and satellite States. Their plight is even worse than ours. We, at least, have the Channel, although even that as a means of safety would, without air superiority, soon depart; and air superiority cannot be obtained by us without the fullest aid from the United States. Therefore I say that on every ground, national, European and international, we should allow no minor matters—even if we feel keenly about them—to stand in the way of the fullest, closest intimacy, accord and association with the United States.
I felt bound to raise these matters, these broader considerations, because we really cannot discuss the intimate and complicated matters which have brought about this debate without holding foremost in our minds all the time the overwhelming issues. If the Government so conduct our affairs that we become a cause of diminishing American help for Britain and for Europe, and stimulate the sentiment for isolation which has powerful exponents in the United States, they might well become primarily responsible, not only for our ruin, but for that of the whole of the free world. It is on this basis, and only on this basis, that I venture to examine the details, or some of the details, or some of the aspects of the exports to Communist China which are the cause of the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is not, I hope, a reproach against me for having placed the matter in its proper setting.
These questions of raw materials and of trading with the enemy were brought prominently before us by the resignation of the three Ministers a fortnight ago.


When the resigning Ministers threw the blame for raw materials shortage in Britain upon the United States, the Americans immediately were greatly stimulated in making their counter-charge that we, while still recognising the enemy and killing them by the thousand in the battles that were taking place, were making profits directly or indirectly out of commerce with them. This tangled question of the supplies of what are called strategic materials to Red China from Great Britain and the Empire and our tropical Colonies is of course only part of the subject, much of which lies in spheres and forms, which are beyond our control. Red China is not the only place and Hong Kong is not the only channel.
Some months ago I complained of the export of high grade war manufacture, and even machines and machine tools, to Russia or its satellites. The Government denied the charge, but took steps to stop it. Whether those steps have been successful I cannot pronounce, nor could we even in a much longer debate reach any definite conclusions here. But even on the direct point of strategic materials being sent by us to China, through Hong Kong or by other routes, it would be difficult this afternoon to reach plain and final conclusions. The statements made by the Minister of Defence, and after him by the Prime Minister, created, I am sure I am right in saying, general astonishment that these Ministers, whose responsibility in the matter is outstanding, were not better informed. It seemed typical of the way in which our affairs are conducted. It was refreshing on Monday to listen to what seemed at first to be a much more precise statement from the new President of the Board of Trade. Here at least there seemed to be evidence of the workings of a clear-cut mind which had been, in the last week or so, turned upon the problem, or upon his brief of the subject.
So far as the regions covered by the figures given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman are concerned the general impression was that the scale of these transactions from the United Kingdom was small, and that there could be no ground for saying that the Chinese have received important assistance from the United Kingdom with the approval of His Majesty's Government. The exports from the United Kingdom are indeed

petty, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was right in saying that it is wrong to suppose that they have been a factor of any significance in the Korean campaign.
We were surprised, however, that he confined his lengthy, well-drafted statement to the exports from the United Kingdom and only mentioned, by reference to the previous answer by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, the exports of rubber from Malaya. This is the gravamen of the whole dispute. "Exports of rubber from the Federated States of Malaya and Singapore to China," said the Under-Secretary on 12th April, "amounted in all to 77,000 tons in 1950, and are estimated to amount to 46,000 tons"—I am speaking in round numbers—"in the first quarter of 1951." Up till 9th April therefore the Government have taken no effective action in this matter and the exports in the first quarter of the present year show an immense and significant increase on what took place last year; 46,000 tons a quarter is—and I hope I am right in my arithmetic—184,000 tons a year—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is right."]—Is that right? Thank you very much. That is to say two-and-a-half times the annual rate of 1950. That is a very remarkable, substantial, significant advance at this time when matters are becoming more and more tense, serious and critical.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman—I shall have to ascertain the right hon. Gentleman's wish as to whether I should continue to insert the complimentary and formal token "learned"—it will be just as he likes, but I am doing it for today, anyhow—the right hon. and learned Gentleman ended his statement by saying that the Government had from 9th April announced their intention, and that of the Governments of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, to control exports of rubber down to the estimated civilian requirements of China, namely, about 2,500 tons a month.
I raised the point of how the Government could be sure that these 2,500 tons a month would be solely devoted to civilian purposes, considering that, in time of war, any Government can commandeer for military purposes all civilian supplies. The right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that it was "quite difficult"—


that was his expression—to ensure that these limited rubber supplies were not being misapplied. Anyhow, on the Government's own figures, China has already had in the first quarter of this year, imports, approved formally and officially by us, of 45,000 tons; or half as much again as would be the full civilian Chinese ration, as calculated by the Government, for the whole year.

Mr. Blackburn: Would the right hon. Gentleman forgive me for one moment?

Mr. Churchill: I thought we were on the same side of the line.

Mr. Blackburn: The position is a little worse than that, because these figures, as I have been informed by the Colonial Office this morning, are exclusive of exports to Hong Kong, which in effect go to China, and therefore, the figure may be approximately double.

Mr. Churchill: That is a new and very valuable fact of which I was not aware and I trust that it will be dealt with by the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he speaks in this debate.

Mr. Harold Davies: Mr. Harold Davies rose——

Mr. Churchill: No—

Mr. Ellis Smith: He is not on the right hon. Gentleman's side.

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) will have a chance later.
If that is so, that will have altered my argument, because we were, in fact, no doubt unwittingly, misled by the President of the Board of Trade the other day. At any rate, my argument may be doubled in strength by the figures, if they are right, but it is not in any way vitiated by the figures I have quoted which show that the Chinese have already had half as much again of what the Government consider is their full civilian ration for the whole year.
The question we have to consider today in this sphere, is whether it is worth while to go on nagging, and haggling, and higgling with the United States over a lot of details, and extremely complex details, and making little progress and creating ill-will out of all proportion to any advantages gained by us. The United States have a valid complaint on the

admitted fact that rubber is an indisputable strategic material. We ought not to be exporting any rubber to China at all, and we on this side of the Committee suggest to the Government, to the Foreign Secretary, who has a direct responsibility in this matter, that as far as they have it in their power, they should stop at once and completely all further export of rubber to China. If there is smuggling, we should do our best to prevent it, and we ought not ourselves to be in the position of agreeing that any rubber should be sent at the present time to Red China.
Surely this would be a simple and straightforward course? It is not so much for the actual fact that I am concerned, but for the consequences. To stop it abruptly and firmly and decisively would clear the air and it would make possible, and perhaps fruitful, the far more complicated discussions about the further steps that are necessary to control any trade which we and the Americans may have with China. It would be a step that everybody could understand, and it might well be the prelude to a whole-hearted agreement with the United States in this sphere, which causes offence and anger far beyond its actual military importance.
I hope we are not going to have another back-biting controversy with the United States about whether any goods are going from Japan into China with their consent.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Harold Davies: Mr. Harold Davies rose——

Mr. Churchill: Perhaps I am going to use the very argument of which the hon. Gentleman is thinking. Anyhow, it is my show at the moment. It might be a very good debating point, if there were really no division between the two sides of the Committee on the matter, here this afternoon, or on some other occasion—a very good debating point—and it is a point which might well be used between Governments if we were bearing an equal burden with the United States—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—an equal burden in the war. But, in the present circumstances, is it really sensible——

Mr. Poole: Do not write down your own country all the time.

Mr. Churchill: Will the hon. Member yell it out again?

Mr. Poole: I suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should not so continuously write down his own country.

Mr. Churchill: There is no better way of writing down your own country than to make boastful and untruthful statements about facts which are known to all. There is no doubt or question of the proportions of the troops who are involved or of the losses which are being suffered in the Korean War. The hon. Member should not put out his hand like that; does he accept what I say? Really, the idea that we can uphold the prestige and standard of our country by adopting positions which are entirely divorced from actual and well-known facts is one of those which I think hon. Members above the Gangway opposite should endeavour to rise above.
I say it would be a great pity to get drawn into this discussion with the United States in detail at the present time and in the present atmosphere, irritating them about minor things, making ineffective repartees. That is not what we should do now when our life and future depend upon their aiding the Atlantic Powers in Europe. Neither let us be baffled by the local difficulties about Hong Kong. I have no doubt they can be solved by measures agreed upon with the United States. Together we have the command of the sea and of the air.
As to a direct attack by the Chinese upon Hong Kong, it must, of course, be resisted by force of arms. We have every sympathy with our fellow-subjects in Hong Kong, but the greatest disservice that we could do them would be to allow a rift to open between us and the United States as a result of our bowing to Communist threats and blackmail.
Let me make this passing observation. Of course, it is always very dangerous, and never more so that at the present time, to predict anything that may happen in the future. But in my view, a Soviet attack will not arise because of an incident. An incident may be a pretext, but the moment will be fixed by the result of long, cold calculations, or miscalculations, and among the factors which will play a potent part the season of the year, including harvest time, will be extremely important. I do not, therefore, consider that the question of our doing our duty by Hong Kong should be overclouded by all the

statements that may be made that this will bring on a general war. Nobody knows what will bring on a general war except those who have the supreme power in the Kremlin.
Our advice to the Government is to stop rubber entirely now and to reach an agreement with the United States on the general question of trade with China in a spirit which will make the United States feel that their cause is our cause, and that we mean at all costs to be good friends and allies. I read with emotion the testimony of General Marshall before the Senate Committee—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman had better take a back seat; well, he has done so.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell) rose——

Mr. Churchill: It is quite right that the right hon. Gentleman should take a back seat. He made a statement the other day about no appeasement and so on. I was glad to read it, but he had spoiled it all beforehand by the remark he made at a most disturbing moment in the United States, that now, perhaps, things will go better in Korea, once General MacArthur had been dismissed. If anything——

Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Shinwell rose——

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Churchill: Hon. Members will not frighten me by their yelling. If anything could at that time have got about 50 million Americans furious with him, and with the Government for whom he spoke, it would have been to use language like that. I am very glad that he tried to undo the harm he did by making his speech against appeasement.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has just asserted that I declared that the dismissal of General MacArthur should be brought about because it would be of advantage to us. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that the statement which he has just made, in which he alleges that I made that statement about General MacArthur, is utterly false, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to produce the written evidence or withdraw. I challenge him in this House to produce the written evidence that I made a statement similar to what he has just said.

Mr. Churchill: I understood, from what was reported in the Press——

Mr. Shinwell: Which Press?

Mr. Churchill: —that the right hon. Gentleman said that perhaps things will now go better in Korea since General MacArthur had been removed.

Mr. Shinwell: Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that I never made any such statement. I challenge him to produce that statement.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Churchill: No, I would not think of withdrawing. I will produce the newspaper report on which I base myself. I have not got it in my notes at the moment, but I will get it. I thought it a most unfortunate statement.

Mr. Shinwell: I never made that statement.

Mr. Churchill: We shall be very glad to hear what was the statement which the right hon. Gentleman actually made. It is always part of the tactics to throw the blame on to the Press, and so on. However, I will produce the Press reports which I read on the subject, and I think they were pretty widely noted. Of course, nobody wishes to accuse the Minister of Defence of crimes which he has not committed.

Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Shinwell rose——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Shinwell: I shall not sit down. May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that he has made a most false statement about me in this House, and that he has no right to make such statements about Ministers?

Mr. Churchill: Do not be so nervous about it.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not nervous about it. [Laughter.] You should be ashamed of yourself. The right hon. Gentleman has done more harm to this country than anyone.

Mr. Churchill: Very helpful, but it is not the right hon. Gentleman who would have any right to teach me my conduct. However, I am sorry to see him so infuriated. The French have a saying that it is only the truth that wounds. I hope that is not the case, because no one

would be more pleased than I to find him not guilty on this occasion.
May I now return to the few words I have still to say to the House. Our advice to the Government is to stop the export of rubber to China entirely now, and to reach a general agreement in the favourable atmosphere which this step would create in the United States. I read with emotion the testimony of General Marshall before the Senate Committee. This great world statesman has proved himself to be one of the leading figures in our life since the Great War. He has spoken with the utmost consideration for our point of view. In him, in General Omar Bradley, and in General Eisenhower here in Europe are men in whose judgment on the world scene we may safely repose the fullest confidence. They are the members or instruments——

An Hon. Member: What about the Admiral?

Mr. Paton: What about Admiral Fechteler?

Mr. Churchill: I try to give consideration to interruptions however irrelevant, and, sometimes, however foolish, but I really cannot be asked such a question as that. I have a great respect for Admiral Fechteler, but I do not think he was put in the right place, and it may be that my view on that, will eventually prevail.
These men are the members or instruments of President Truman's administration who have enabled him to take the valiant stand he has against the Communist menace, and to lead the great Republic to the rescue of the free world from mortal peril. It is the duty of His Majesty's Government so to act as to prove, beyond all doubt or question, that we are good and faithful comrades of the American democracy, and will stand with them, whatever may happen, as brothers in arms.

4.25 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Hartley Shawcross): We are very glad that this matter has been raised in debate, since it will provide a full opportunity of clearing up some of the genuine, if natural, misunderstandings which have arisen about this matter, and will enable us to make our policy abundantly clear. I join with the right hon. Gentleman, if


I may, in hoping that our discussions here will not become an acrimonious debate, which is the very last thing they should become on Anglo-American relations, but will, on the contrary, serve a useful purpose in cementing still more the close and friendly relationship and understanding which exists between this country and the great democracy of America, which is so vital to the future of the whole world.
Before I plunge into the full detail of this matter, I would like to make an apology and say a word or two by way of caveat and explanation. For myself, I must crave indulgence if at times I do not manifestly possess the familiarity with these matters which might have been expected from a Minister who was actually responsible during the time to which our debate relates. I shall do my best, but the Board of Trade is rather like a very big forest, and one sometimes fails to see the wood for the trees. Then I must apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. As I think was indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, this is a matter which is really very largely the concern of the Colonial Office rather than of the Board of Trade. My right hon. Friend would have wished to be here to deal with it, but he had to start off on an important visit to the Colonial Territories, and since the matter was obviously one which had to be dealt with in a comprehensive way as far as possible by one Minister, the lot has fallen to me to do it.
Secondly—and I hope this is not impertinence—I would like to suggest a note of warning, or to enter, as I should have said in my old capacity, a kind of caveat against the trap into which I myself have fallen in this matter, the trap of oversimplification. At first sight, this question of trading with China while she is participating in an illegal aggression in Korea, while she is defying the United Nations and fighting against ourselves and the other members of the United Nations who are seeking to restore and to maintain the rule of law, seems clear enough. At first blush, it certainly appeared so to me, and so, I dare say, it must still appear to our friends in the United States of America, whose soldiers are suffering such very grievous casualties, but whose Government, on the other hand, have not got the

same involvements and difficulties which we have.
The simple way of looking at the matter is, of course, that these men are our men and the soldiers of our friends. They are fighting together under the banner of the United Nations, and they are being killed by the arms and the armies of China. The idea of maintaining trade relations with China in those circumstances may well, at first sight, seem something which is utterly repugnant—[Interruption.]—but I venture to hope that our debate will not degenerate into a discussion of the accuracy of particular newspaper reports, at any rate not at this moment.
I was saying that at first sight this did seem a very simple and clear problem, but when matters are looked at against the general background of our responsibilities——

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Richard Adams: On a point of order. Is it in order, Major Milner, for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) to induce other right hon. Members to break the rules of order by reading a newspaper in the Committee?

The Chairman: The circumstances are a little exceptional, but perhaps if any further reference is to be made to the matter, it might wait until the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has completed his speech.

Mr. Churchill: I am very sorry for the interruption in the President's speech, but there was a considerable interruption in mine. Is it not the rule that it is incorrect for Members to read a newspaper in the Chamber for amusement, but not for necessary quotations that may be required in the course of debate? I should be very glad to have that newspaper back.

The Chairman: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman I would say that may be so, but it may be equally out of order to hand newspapers across the Table.

Mr. Clement Davies: The statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is one of the gravest statements to which I have listened in the House of Commons and we are very anxious to hear it.

Sir H. Shawcross: I am one of those who enjoy very much the occasions when a little fun can be had by all of us, but this is a serious occasion. We are discussing matters of considerable gravity and I shall not be making a very flippant speech about them. It seems to me that the first and the natural approach to a problem of this kind would perhaps be one that tended to over-simplification, and it might well seem repugnant to have trading relations with a country engaged in fighting and killing our soldiers and the soldiers of our friends. But when matters are looked at against the general background of our responsibilities—and our commitments—in the Far East, and looked at realistically, the matter really is not quite so simple as that.
Let me, first of all, make this quite clear, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) referred to it and that is my only excuse for following him with regard to the matter. For over two years past we have been controlling the export—in many cases totally prohibiting the export—of things that might be of strategic value to Communist countries. We have completely prohibited the export of arms and armaments and of goods and commodities having an immediate strategic importance to a number of destinations which cover the whole of the Soviet bloc and the whole of China. There is a very long list of things having direct military importance, or which might have direct military importance, the export of which to those countries is totally prohibited and has for a long time been totally prohibited.
In addition to that, there is another long and complicated list of things the export of which is watched and restricted to quantities which it is considered would be absorbed in the normal peace-time economy of the countries to which they are exported. Since China began to participate in the aggression in Korea a much more stringent and restrictive policy was, of course, put into operation against her. But up to that time our policy as regards China was the same as our policy in relation to the rest of the Communist States. It was one which was designed to prevent anything being exported from us or our Colonies which would build up their military potential.

Mr. Blackburn: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Sir H. Shawcross: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford referred to the question of recognition of the Communist Government of China. That is something which is somewhat outside the purview of my Department. I would like to say that before we decided to recognise the Communist Government of China we had full consultation with all the Commonwealth Governments and with a number of others. Indian recognition, as a matter of fact, preceded our own. We recognised because we thought recognition was a plain acknowledgment of the facts as they existed, and those facts as they existed entitled the Communist Government, as a matter of international law, to recognition.
I am not going to engage in controversy or argument on that point. This happened some time ago, and it has happened. It is a matter perhaps, on which one may speculate. One perhaps might wonder whether, if other Governments had followed the lead we had taken in recognising the Communist Government as the legal Government—or indeed the de facto Government of China as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford thought should have been done—the present situation would have been as serious as it is.
At all events—we thought rightly, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford may think not altogether rightly—we did recognise the Communist Government of China as the Government of China. Having done that, we did not shut our eyes as to what kind of Government it was and we have sought—and these measures have been intensified, of course, since China came into the conflict in Korea—on the one hand to prevent the export of things which would in any significant way increase the war potential of the country concerned—of China. At the same time, and here again our policy was the same as towards the other Soviet countries, we have tried to maintain a trade from which our country obtains important and necessary supplies, taking the Communist States as a whole, particularly of timber, grain and certain foodstuffs. When our policy in regard to trade relations with Communist countries is considered some of our critics perhaps do not always remember that this country is not entirely self-supporting, or that the


granaries of Europe are in large part on the Eastern side of the Iron Curtain.
Nor was our traditional trade with China something we could entirely ignore. It was something of considerable economic importance to us and to other Commonwealth and colonial areas. We have thought—and I am speaking on the position generally, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford did, before the actual participation of China in this military aggression—that it was to the advantage of the free world that both we and other countries in Western Europe should continue to draw from Eastern Europe goods which cannot readily be obtained elsewhere. But we can only obtain those goods if we send exports to those countries in return for them. Moreover, it has never been the policy of His Majesty's Government to embark upon an economic war with other countries in the world or to start an economic blockade of the Communist countries.
Until China's intervention in the conflict in Korea altered the position, as of course it did so far as China was concerned, the basic justification of our trading policy in relation to the Communist countries has been that on an objective assessment it confers as many advantages on us as it confers in return upon the Communist countries. It is very understandable that in other countries which are less dependent on imports to live and less dependent on exports to pay their way in the world, a stricter line should be taken, but, as a matter of fact, it is to be observed that our policy in this matter has been more restrictive than that of any other country, apart from the United States of America themselves.
Here let me say that in drawing up our control lists we have exchanged with friendly countries, and particularly with the United States of America, our views about these matters. I do not mean by that—and I want this to be quite clear—that we have asked for or obtained the approval of other countries to our prohibitive or our quantitative lists. The responsibility for making and operating these lists was clearly the responsibility of His Majesty's Government, and we stand by the decisions that we have taken in regard to them; but in order to assure the Committee that we have not been

exporting goods of significant strategic importance, I propose very shortly to publish a statement or list of the kind of goods the export of which we have only permitted to Allied and friendly Powers.
So much for the general position before the intervention of China in the aggression in Korea. When that intervention took place it plainly became necessary to operate the controls and the restrictions with increasing severity. In pursuing that policy we were guided by four main considerations. We desired to do nothing to jeopardise the friendship and the understanding between ourselves and the United States of America and the rest of the United Nations, or to jeopardise the common purpose in which we are all engaged in this matter. That is something that we recognise to be very vital.
We desired, on the other hand, to do nothing which jeopardised the possibility of confining this conflict and localising it to Korea itself. We desired to do nothing which would jeopardise the military and the political security of our Colonial Territories in the Far East or be inimical to the interests of other Commonwealth countries. Finally, we were determined to do nothing which would jeopardise the lives or safety of our own soldiers or of the other soldiers in association with whom our soldiers were fighting, and that, obviously, is the dominant matter to which we have to have regard in determining the nature of our policy.
In the light of those considerations, and particularly of the last one, we have consistently limited exports to China to things not in themselves of direct military value or in quantities which were not of military signficance. Apart from the case of rubber—and I am going to deal with the case of rubber—our trade with China, whether from here direct or from Colonial Territories, can have had no significant or material effect on the military potential of China in Korea. Let me concede at once that in pursuing our policy we were not able to go the whole of the way with the United States of America who imposed a complete embargo upon all trade with China in December of last year. Nor were the rest of the United Nations able to go the whole of the way with the United States in this matter. The reason for not being able to go the whole of the way with the United States has been made perfectly clear.
We have sought to make it clear beyond any possibility of doubt by anybody that we wished to avoid any extension of the Korean conflict. We have sought to make it clear that if China were to seek to negotiate a settlement of the situation in Korea she would certainly find us not ready for appeasement, but ready to give reasonable consideration to any proposal she put forward which would have the effect of restoring and maintaining the rule of law in international affairs. We considered that it would reduce the chances of confining the conflict to Korea and reaching, at the end of the day, a reasonable settlement of that kind if we were to stop all trade with her. It has not hitherto been the policy of the United Nations to impose a complete economic embargo, so we in this country did not impose a complete economic embargo.
Moreover, in applying the restrictions which we have—and I repeat that those restrictions were more stringent than those of any other country, apart from the United States of America—we have been throughout in close consultation with the United States Government. Again, I do not mean by that that the United States Administration has not asked us to extend our controls and our restrictions. Naturally, they would have liked us to be able to go further along the way with them in the direction in which they themselves have gone.
But, given the difference in our points of view about imposing economic sanctions on China, and given the very special circumstances which exist and which are created by our responsibilities for Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong—responsibilities which give rise to problems for us which are very difficult and which are not shared at all by the Government of the United States of America—we hope—and I think it is fair to say this—that the United States Government have at least been aware of the special nature of our problems and of the importance of the steps that we have taken, in spite of those problems, to cut down our trading relationship with China.
Indeed, the proposal which the United States Government have now made themselves to the Additional Measures Committee of the United Nations, and to which we shall

give our support in that Committee, is not even now a proposal which calls for a total cessation of trade with China or which is intended to impose a complete blockade.

Mr. Churchill: I did not say that.

Sir H. Shawcross: There are some who think that we should cut off all trading relationships with a country whose troops are fighting against our troops. To me it appears——

Mr. Churchill: I never attempted to use that argument. I have tried to argue that we should endeavour to reach a friendly agreement with the United States for our joint practice.

Sir H. Shawcross: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman who represents, perhaps, in this matter a more moderate view than is held in some other quarters—possibly some outside this country. We have every hope of reaching a friendly agreement about this matter, and that is why I said just now that in the Additional Measures Committee of the United Nations we shall discuss and support the proposal which the United States Government is putting forward.
Now I want to deal with the matter in a little more detail with regard to particular exports. So far as those from the United Kingdom to China are concerned, I gave a list of those in some detail last Tuesday and, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say, I do not propose to enlarge upon it now. I merely repeat what I said then—that it is complete nonsense to suggest, as has been suggested—not at all by the right hon. Gentleman—that we were flooding Hong Kong with exports from this country, or sending them direct to China, which had the effect of increasing China's war potential. That is quite untrue; there is not the slightest foundation for it.
As China has become more involved in the conflict in Korea, so we have progressively imposed new controls and restrictions and strengthened existing controls and restrictions upon our trade with her. That is a continuing process and I can assure the Committee, both in regard to direct trade from here and also trade from the Colonies to China, that we shall exercise a very vigilant watch over what is going on in the light of the circumstances as they exist at the time.
It is the exports from the Colonial Territories to China which have presented by far the greatest problem. Much has been said—and very naturally said—about the rubber situation. We published the facts about it a month ago, and I must say that we noticed their significance and took action to deal with the matter before we had published the facts, and, indeed, long before the House showed their very proper anxiety about this matter. Here, I should like to pick up the point which was put to me by the right hon. Gentleman as a result of an intervention by somebody else—a point about the figures.

Mr. Churchill: An hon. Member for a Birmingham division?

Sir H. Shawcross: For one of the Birmingham divisions, I believe.

Mr. Churchill: There are several of them.

Sir H. Shawcross: All these names change so quickly that I can never keep pace with them. I gave the figures in an answer, I think, on 15th April, Those figures, as I am assured quite definitely by the Colonial Office—and I have here the statistics given me—included the rubber which was exported through Hong Kong. Rubber is exported from Malaya or Singapore. Some of it goes direct and some of it goes via Hong Kong, and the total figures were the larger figures—and they included the lesser imports through Hong Kong. Rubber is not produced in Hong Kong, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, but it goes through Hong Kong in the course of transit.

Mr. Churchill: A statement of considerable importance was made by the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn). We want to know whether that is true or not. I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he denies it entirely.

Sir H. Shawcross: Entirely.

Mr. Churchill: That being so, I earnestly hope that the hon. Member for Northfield will have a chance either of withdrawing it or confirming it.

Sir H. Shawcross: I do not think it really matters very much. I dare say that the Colonial Office and the Rubber

Study Group, who publish a rubber statistical bulletin, which I am told is the bible of the rubber trade, know a little more about these matters than the hon. Member for Northfield. I think it is clear that the figures I gave are the total exports and that the Hong Kong figures come within that global total.
I do not think I need reiterate all the difficulties which have surrounded this question of the rubber trade, nor need I remind the House that, whilst the economy of Malaya and Singapore depends largely on the rubber trade, and whilst other sources of supply are obviously open to China, this is not a matter with which it is very easy to deal. Nor need I discuss the obvious complications to our interests out there which arise from the breaking of forward contracts and matters of that kind. We considered that the quantities of rubber which were being exported to China were certainly in excess of her civilian requirements and, although none of the other rubber producing countries has so far taken the same action as we decided to take, we cut down the exports to what we thought was a reasonable figure, and we did that notwithstanding the difficulties and the embarrassments it would cause in the two Colonial Territories concerned.
I should perhaps say that, although we have been in constant communication with the United States of America on this question, our decision to cut down the imports to the figure of 2,500 tons a month was taken without prior discussion with them and on our own responsibility. I am sure that American public opinion appreciated the action we have taken, but there was no question of their agreeing to it; this was our decision and we took it. Since taking it, a little over a month ago, we have been further examining the matter between ourselves and the Colonial Governments concerned and we have now decided, in view of the abnormally high imports of rubber into China in the first quarter of this year, that her civilian needs can be regarded as fully satisfied for the current year.
What, therefore, we have decided to do, in view of these abnormally high imports into China in the first quarter of this year, is to request the Governments concerned in Malaya and Borneo to take steps to ensure that there will be no further exports this year of rubber to China from Malaya and from the other British territories


involved, and we are asking the Colonial Governments to act as quickly as they can in the matter.

Mr. Thomas Reid: Mr. Thomas Reid (Swindon) rose——

Mr. Eden: One question arises from that important statement, and it concerns the position of Indonesia.

Sir H. Shawcross: As the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, that is one of the great difficulties in this situation. It is very easy to say, "Cut off all your rubber exports to China." What happens? Other rubber-producing countries come in and fill the deficiency and, at the end of the day, we have not produced any practical improvement in the situation. Some may think that we had merely cut off our noses to spite our faces.

Mr. Reid: I was trying to ask the same question as the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). Is it not a fact that big shipments of rubber are going to China from Indonesia, India and Ceylon?

Sir H. Shawcross: I do not think that that is correct at present. But there are obvious alternative sources of supply. In asking our own Colonial Governments to stop these supplies of rubber, what we are doing is to express the hope, as I now do, that other rubber-producing countries will refrain from providing alternative sources of supply which might help to build up China's war potential. We express that hope now, and at the earliest opportunity, when this matter comes before the Additional Measures Committee of the United Nations, we shall propose action by the United Nations with a view to securing co-operation in this matter by all concerned, so that our interests will not have been sacrificed and so that action by ourselves alone, however meritorious it may be, would not be rendered ineffective by supplies going into China from other countries.

Mr. Eden: This is very important. Is it not a fact that this rubber, and particularly Indonesian rubber, goes through Singapore—or, at least, the bulk of it does? Is it not also a fact that some of it goes in British ships? Pending the agreement with the United Nations, would it not be right for us to refuse to allow this rubber either to go through Singapore

or to go in British ships, because if we do not do that, we are merely handicapping our own people in the interests, of Indonesia.

Sir H. Shawcross: The question of transhipment and of transit cargoes is one of very great complication and legal difficulty and it is one with which it is proposed to deal before the Additional Measures Committee. Quite obviously, it is a matter which must be investigated and we shall do our best to find some practical solution. It is a matter which concerns not only this country or its Colonies, but which concerns every country which provides port facilities or transport facilities on the shipping lanes of the world. We hope we shall be able to find some solution to it—and that, I think, is all I can usefully say about the subject at the moment.
On the subject of rubber, I merely say this, in conclusion: we hope that other countries will follow this lead, but we have taken the lead—

Mr. Blackburn: How dare the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that?

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not use the weapon of grimace.

Sir H. Shawcross: I will refrain from using the weapon of grimace or noticing vulgarity when it occurs; it is always best.
I should add this about the rubber position. To mitigate the hardship which these decisions may create in Malaya and the other countries concerned, His Majesty's Government are prepared to buy the rubber for which forward contracts had been made in good faith before the imposition of these restrictions, and these purchases will be in addition to those which we should have made in any event, so that we hope no financial loss will be caused directly in consequence of what we have done.
Now I turn to the very special problem of Hong Kong—China trade. In relation to any attempt to restrict trade with China the position of Hong Kong is manifestly more difficult than that of any other territory in the world. I wish that some of those who have criticised the policy which the Government of Hong Kong have been pursuing had familiarised themselves——

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

5.3 p.m.

Whereupon, The GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, 1951.
2. Fire Services Act, 1951.
3. Long Leases (Temporary Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1951.
4. Reverend J. G. MacManaway's Indemnity Act, 1951.
5. Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951.
6. National Health Service Act, 1951.
7. Aberdeen Chartered Accountants' Widows' Fund Order Confirmation Act, 1951.
8. Edinburgh Chartered Accountants' Annuity, &amp;c., Fund Order Confirmation Act, 1951:
9. Airdrie Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1951.
10. University of Edinburgh (Royal (Dick) Veterinary College) Order Confirmation Act, 1951.
11. Humber Conservancy Act, 1951.
12. Canterbury Extension Act, 1951.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Question again proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Exports to China for the year ending on 31st March, 1952.

Orders of the Day — EXPORTS TO CHINA

5.18 p.m.

Sir H. Shawcross: I was talking about Hong Kong. I sometimes do wish that those who criticise the policy that the Hong Kong Government have pursued

had familiarised themselves with the position of Hong Kong. That is what has always got to be borne in mind in considering the policy—the trade policy—that that Colony has pursued. Even if they only considered its geographical position, that would help them to realise some of the difficulties that have to be encountered.
Hong Kong is a great international entrepôt port through which supplies have moved into and out of China from all over the world. I say from all over the world because it is not only the United Kingdom that exports to Hong Kong. Of Hong Kong's total imports 22 per cent. come from China; 10 per cent. come from the United Kingdom; 17 per cent.—I am taking the figures for last year—come from the United States of America. That entrepôt trade, and the local industries which are based on importing raw materials and making them up and then exporting the products, is the life blood of Hong Kong, and without it it could not possibly maintain its economy or support its population of 2,500,000 people. In particular it depends on China for a considerable part of its food supply, particularly fresh foods which could not easily be obtained from elsewhere; and its water supply, although not, as I mistakenly said the other day, coming actually from Chinese territory comes from the mainland and is extremely vulnerable in its situation.
Moreover, 95 per cent. of the population are Chinese, many of them recent refugees and almost all maintaining close personal ties with China. It must be clearly realised by those who criticise Hong Kong policy in regard to trade with China that any serious food shortage, or any considerable unemployment in Hong Kong would provide opportunities for economic and political difficulties of a most serious kind. A military victory against Communism at the front door is of no good if Communism is infiltrating through the back door owing to economic, social and political difficulties.
In spite of the obviously high degree to which Hong Kong's economy depends on trade with China the Hong Kong Government have imposed a total prohibition on the export to China of over 200 items of industrial equipment, such as a wide range of machine tools, steel products of particular strategic importance,


copper, brass, cobalt, aluminium, zinc, nickel, rubber tyres and tubes, many chemicals, including sulphur and sulphuric acid, certain types of railway rolling stock and a large range of specialised radio and electrical equipment. All this in addition to the obvious things like arms, aircraft and munitions. The full effect of these restrictions, is not yet shown in our last trade returns which have reached London—but I am told that the provisional figures for April show a very large drop in volume compared with earlier months.
A great deal of publicity has been given to statements said to have been made by General MacArthur about Hong Kong's trade with China. I cannot think his statement has been full reported. At all events I am sure he would wish the full facts to be known. First of all I should point out that the document from which General MacArthur was quoting was, apparently, a secret document, specially furnished at fortnightly intervals by the Hong Kong Government to the United States authorities as part of the system of keeping a careful watch and statistical check upon exports to China.
It would be difficult to find better evidence of our desire to co-operate closely with the U.S. authorities in the application of these controls and in supplying them fully with information of what was going on than the production of that document which fortnight by fortnight was handed by our authorities to the authorities of the Supreme Commander in that theatre of war. I do not find this fact referred to in the reports published over here of General MacArthur's statements to the Senate Committee.
General MacArthur, if correctly reported, seems perhaps not to have fully appreciated the nature of some of the information in the document itself. He referred by name to a number of items on this so-called strategic list, as I think it was called, but he did not mention the smallness of the quantities of many of the items involved. Thus he referred to petroleum, diesel oils, fuel oils, gasoline, kerosene and lubricants. Certainly they were on the list. His recital of the fact caused very naturally great anxiety. What he does not seem to have pointed out at any rate, so far as the reports over here are concerned is that the list showed nil quantities as having been exported to

China. In fact all exports of that kind had been prohibited as long ago as July, 1950.
Other items he quoted had been prohibited, as he might perhaps have been able to ascertain before he made his statement. Others again, although on the list, are not ordinarily regarded as being of strategic importance, such, for instance, as fertilisers, hand tools and insecticides. These are the things to which he has specifically referred. Of the remaining items to which he specially referred, many were not—I do not say all—being exported in quantities which can be regarded as strategically significant. I do not want to reduce the thing to an absurdity—but in the list for the period 19th February to 4th March from which the General was apparently quoting, he chose to select cameras. The list showed one camera exported to China over that period.
Having said that, let me agree that the total figures for Hong Kong exports to China have been high in the first quarter of this year as compared with last year as a whole—£43 million as compared with £91 million for the previous year. It does not follow, as I have been pointing out, that in those exports was anything in sufficient quantity to have any strategic importance, but looking at the list as a whole, I am not prepared to say there were not a few items which it would have been better to restrict more stringently. That has now been done.
But while it is very easy for people to say: "Impose still more restrictions," I do beg them to have in mind these considerations: First, the need to refrain from measures which would cause serious economic hardship and consequent political difficulties in Hong Kong. Second, the need to ensure by way of trade the supply of foodstuffs and raw materials to maintain Hong Kong's economy and which can only be obtained from China—exactly the kind of consideration which no doubt led General MacArthur himself to allow Japan's exports to China in 1950 to build up from a monthly average of just over half a million dollars in the first half of the year to a monthly average of nearly 3½ million in the last quarter of last year. Third, there is the need to refrain from action which might cause a widening of the field of conflict in Asia.
Subject to all these considerations—and in spite of all those difficulties—and they are very real and cogent difficulties which do not arise for the U.S. but which do for us—we intend, as I have said, not only to support the proposals which the U.S. are putting before the Additional Measures Committee of the U.N. and to march along with the rest of the U.N. in this matter—indeed, we are far ahead of all of them apart from the U.S.A.—not only that, but we have been reviewing with the Governor of Hong Kong what further steps can be taken without waiting for the United Nations to make sure that no Hong Kong exports are sent to China which might assist China in any way at all to build up the strength or military potential of her country.

Mr. Churchill: And rubber.

Sir H. Shawcross: Rubber is clearly included.

Mr. Harold Davies: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend. The figures of Japanese exports to Hong Kong are of importance, but according to the "Oriental Economist" the exports direct from Japan to China have increased from 5,600 million yen to 13,000 million yen this year, and they were a quid pro quo in so far as we could also see the secret strategic list of exports in that direction.

Sir H. Shawcross: It is very difficult to get out all these figures, and I am not in a position to confirm that one. I can only give the figures for last year. My own impression does not agree with that of my hon. Friend, but I am not pretending to be in a position to give accurate figures for the last three months of Japan's China trade, or say whether they have gone up or down. I am giving figures up to the time when the United States imposed an embargo as from America in regard to exports to China, and I am not in a position to go beyond it.
I finish what I fear has been an over-long speech on a subject of some great importance, not only to this country but elsewhere, by expressing the hope that the statement I am now concluding will not only clear up misunderstandings here, but will fully allay the anxieties in the United States of America—anxieties

which we very readily understand, but which we think were largely based on a lack of adequate information. We in this country have never been backward in supporting the cause of freedom and in protecting the reign of law and democracy, and we are not backward now.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I do not intend to intervene for more than a few moments. I should like to begin by congratulating the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and thanking him for his full and very clear statement, which I hope will go a long way to allay anxieties both here and elsewhere. If I may say so to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it was worthy of the highest traditions, not of his present office, but of the Bar. [An HON. MEMBER: "A pat on the back."] If we can give somebody a pat on the back, why should we not do so? Why not be generous when you can be generous?
We entered into this matter together in June, 1950, when South Korea was invaded. We entered upon it, not merely to defend South Korea and the South Korean people, but for a far deeper and greater reason—the maintenance of the rule of law. If we are to maintain the rule of law, those of us who believe in it, must do our very utmost to keep together and try to avoid misunderstandings, and, certainly, to avoid criticisms as much as we possibly can.
Incidentally, while I am paying that compliment to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, may I say that it was only right and proper that this matter should have been raised, as it was by the Opposition Front Bench, so that we could have this statement in full? What I do ask for—and I am assured that what I am asking for is also the intention of the Government—is that, whether it was so in the past or not, there shall be the fullest co-operation between all the countries that are defending the rule of law and which are determined to maintain as long as they possibly can, the freedom of each one of us.
May I end with this comment? Much has been said about our position with regard to Hong Kong; much has also been said with regard to exports from Japan. Let there be no recriminations between us, if we can possibly avoid them. This is a moment when we should really


all be working together for a one common object which we all desire—the maintenance of our own way of life and our own freedom against any aggressor, wherever he may be.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Certainly, this debate is extremely important, and the President of the Board of Trade has just made a very important statement, which I think will be welcomed on all sides of the Committee. There has been widespread misunderstanding about exports to China, and this misunderstanding has existed both in this country and on the other side of the Atlantic. I think that the Government themselves are very largely to blame for that misunderstanding and for failing to make the position perfectly clear a great deal sooner.
Let us, first of all, take the case of the list which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave in a Written Answer to the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn) on 30th April. There was a misunderstanding about what was included under the heading "Vehicles (including ships, locomotives and aircraft)." I do not think, therefore, that we in this House, certainly not the back benchers, still less the public outside, could be blamed for thinking that, where the heading reads, "Vehicles (including aircraft)," it really meant aircraft. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has since made this clear; he explained that that was merely a technical classification in the Trade and Navigation accounts, and no aircraft were exported.

Mr. Adams: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the figure of £71,000 clearly indicated that neither aircraft nor sea-going craft could possibly have been involved?

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Of course, I agree that it could not have meant anything very substantial, but most of us are not so much concerned about the size of what was exported, as about the principle involved.
Then, of course, the Minister of Defence did not make matters easier in the middle of the week, and the Prime Minister himself clearly knew as much about this question as he had known about the appointment of an American Admiral as Supreme Commander, Atlantic.

Mr. James Hudson: But my right hon. Friend denied very explicitly the statement made.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: The President of the Board of Trade has now put the position in the right perspective, but this information should not have had to have been wrung out of the Government as the result of questions and speeches from this side. It should have been given by the Government themselves months ago on their own initiative. Of course, it has not only resulted in misunderstanding at home, which would be serious enough, but, what is far more serious, there has been misunderstanding in the United States. Whether that misunderstanding was well-founded or ill-founded, it is fairly clear from the remarks made by General Marshall that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were, at any rate until today, when they will be able to read the report of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, considerably disturbed about the goods exported from Great Britain and from our Colonial Territories to China.
What I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman is what steps have been taken up to now to explain Britain's own particular difficulties, first of all, in official circles in Washington, and secondly, to the American public outside? One would have thought, from the size of our Information Services in America, that we really should have been able to explain, one way or another, our particular difficulties in relation to Hong Kong, the kind of goods that were being exported, and to have assured the United States that, in actual fact, nothing that would do very great damage, with the possible exception of rubber, was being exported to China at all. Our own unilateral action in recognising the Communist Government of China has caused quite enough difficulty in our relations with America without adding fuel to the flames by further misunderstanding over trade with China.
The Government ought long ago to have explained their apparent inaction. Once again they have taken decisions too late. Why, for instance, was it only during the last four weeks that the export of rubber from Malaya to China was limited to 2,500 tons a month when the figures, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, for the first quarter of the


year were so abnormally high? Why is it only today that the export of rubber from British territories is now to be more or less completely eliminated? The Korean war has been going on quite a long time.
It is perfectly true that neither India nor Ceylon nor Indonesia are prepared to toe the line in imposing any such embargo. It is equally true that even if we do not export any rubber at all——

Sir H. Shawcross: I am loath to interrupt the hon. Member, but I hope in that phrase he used he is not suggesting that any of these countries are under any kind of obligation to toe the line. They do not toe the line to us. We have expressed, in the statement I made today, our hope about the position they may take up in these matters. The United Nations will consider the matter in due time, but there really is not any question of anybody toeing the line, either ourselves or any other foreign country.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Perhaps the phrase "toeing the line" was not a happy one. I understood the position to be that, as a result of various conversations which have taken place and suggestions made by His Majesty's Government and by the United States Government, neither India, nor Ceylon, nor Indonesia, felt able to fall into line with any suggestion of placing an embargo upon the exports of rubber to China. If I am wrong in that view, I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me.

Sir H. Shawcross: Yes, I would not like the hon. Gentleman to be under that impression. I have expressed the hope we have that these countries will feel it possible to take up a particular position in regard to this matter and not supply rubber in the place of ourselves, but I would not like to go beyond that.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: It is a fact that the actual quantity of rubber which can be exported, both from Siam and Indonesia, would be sufficient for China's total consumption leaving aside any other source——

Sir H. Shawcross: Yes.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: —but, in spite of that, it has seemed to a great many hon.

Gentlemen in all quarters of this Committee, and to a large section of the population outside, highly anomalous that at a time when British troops are defending rubber plantations in Malaya against Communists, the product of those plantations should be freely exported to China to support the Communist régime which, in its turn, is supporting the bandits who are making attacks upon the rubber plantations in Malaya.
I believe that in these tortuous and difficult days it is impossible to overestimate the importance of Anglo-American relations. We have our point of view over certain things and the United States have theirs, and we must each try to understand the other. That is why many of us, at any rate on this side of the Committee, regret that not merely during the course of the war in Korea but during all the preceding years since the end of the second great war, the only two men who really counted for the defence of the free world—the British Prime Minister and the American President—have met on only one occasion. We have been handicapped by the unfortunate fact that for the last months of his life the late Foreign Secretary was gravely ill. We are handicapped now by having a Foreign Secretary who is perhaps happier answering questions about the price of coffee at the Festival Exhibition than—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I only want to say one more thing to His Majesty's Government. When they find themselves beginning to differ from the United States on any really big issue, as this one is, they must make their attitude perfectly clear and do everything possible to explain it, not only in official circles but to the American public, before, and not after, the misunderstanding arises.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) except, if he will allow me, to say, with respect, that it is a pity he should have spoiled a moderate and reasonable speech by a cheap gibe of which I am sure he will be ashamed when he reads it in HANSARD tomorrow.
Nobody, whatever his views about the general background and the general politics of this matter, can fail to share what must be the unanimous view of the


House and of the country that, while hostilities are proceeding in which our men are engaged, it would be an absurd and a wicked thing that we should supply those with whom they are in conflict with any of the means of carrying on the war. I think the debate has been an extremely useful one, if only because it has enabled my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade to dispose, I hope for ever, of that controversy. He has established that in a very difficult situation we have done at least as well as anybody else in that regard.
My justification for intervening for a minute or two is the opening part of the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition, who referred to more general matters. It would be a great pity if this debate, which of necessity can only be a short one, should come to an end without anyone taking the opportunity of urging His Majesty's Government now to take a new and a constructive initiative for bringing this unhappy business in Korea to an end—unhappy for Korea, I think everybody will admit; fraught with the gravest dangers to the peace of the world, as I think nobody denies.
Must we go on with this affair, in which the real sufferers are the people whom we intervened to save? So that by this time I suppose there is not a Korean who cares anything for either side and whose view of the whole matter would not be, "A plague on both your houses." It ought not to be impossible for that new initiative to be taken. My right hon. and learned Friend said that if the Chinese were prepared to negotiate on reasonable lines, we should be prepared to consider very sympathetically any suggestions they had to make.
I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will admit that it is not an unreasonable thing to say, if one is invited to negotiate, "First, please recognise that I am there." I understand that the Chinese made it perfectly clear last September that their conditions for a cease fire were simple and reasonable enough. First, that they should be recognised by those with whom they are negotiating. There can be nothing unreasonable about that, nothing with which we can disagree. Secondly, that the negotiations should be on the basis of the unity and independence of Korea.
There is nothing there that we can disagree about. We may disagree about

how it is to be done; we cannot disagree with the proposition, because it is the proposition of the United Nations itself. And then, that after that cease fire, there should be a conference in which all matters arising out of that situation in the Far East might be discussed among the Powers most nearly concerned—one of them, the admission of the correct Chinese representatives into the institutions of the United Nations; another of them the position of Formosa.
No one can suppose for a moment that there is anything in any of those conditions, on which there could have been a cease fire last September, with which this country disagrees. The reason why negotiations on that basis and at that stage proved to be impossible were, first, the complete refusal—I think a 100 per cent. vote in the Senate—by the United States of America to recognise China at all, and the position in Formosa, which is obviously a matter of the greatest offence and danger to China in Chinese eyes, and in respect of which the United States have at no time obtained, and have at no time sought, any United Nations authority of any kind; about which we said last July that we would not associate ourselves with it and about which President Truman said at the same time that it would come to an end as soon as fighting in Korea ceased.
All those are matters which cannot be held to be unreasonable things about which to negotiate, and as far as the Chinese are concerned, I say they have done everything that can be expected of them in the way of putting forward proposals on the basis of which reasonable discussions could take place.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: What is the hon. Member's reaction to the fact that they refused to recognise our recognition?

Mr. Silverman: They did not refuse to do anything of the kind. Their position is a perfectly simple one: "We are, under international law, the Government of China. The United Nations Charter provides that the Government of China's representative shall hold certain places in its institutions, and that is what we want." If we were in that position, that is what we would be saying, too. There is nothing unreasonable in that, and the only thing that stands in the way is the disagreement


with the United States of America, about which I must say one or two sentences before I conclude.
People in this House sometimes accuse me of being anti-American. I am nothing of the kind. I agree entirely with the Leader of the Opposition that the recognition of facts is not a detriment to the prestige of any country—either us, the United States, or anybody else. The fact of the matter is that if we are claiming to be conducting our operations in Korea in order to uphold the rule of law, then as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, under the rule of law the present Government of China is entitled to recognition; and so long as the United States of America do not recognise it, the United States of America are in conflict with international law. We are continuing this conflict now side by side with the U.S.A., a conflict which goes on only because of the refusal of the U.S.A. to do what is obviously the right thing in law and the right thing in fact.
It seems to me that it is possible to put too high a price on an alliance with any country, no matter how economically or otherwise dependent upon her one might be. There is a point at which reasonable agreement and concession become appeasement. There is a point at which one ceases to be an ally and becomes a satellite. The point at which those things occur is the point at which we continue to sacrifice our own people's rights and continue a situation fraught with the utmost danger to the peace of the world in order to maintain something which we have ourselves declared we do not believe.
My right hon. Friends are quite right in what they have done about the supply of strategic materials while the hostilities continue, but let them not be content with that. Let them take the responsibility that rests upon them. Let them take the initiative for which the free peoples of the world would be grateful, and an initiative and a responsibility which might well succeed. Let them take their courage in both hands and say that we are going to make a new effort now to bring this absurd and dangerous, bloody and tragic conflict to an early end on a basis which has been open to us since September last.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I shall be as brief as I can, but I must spare a minute, not to apologise exactly, but to explain to the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), who I am sorry is not now present, that he half heard an interjection of mine and thought it had an intention which it did not have. I was in no way rebuking or reprehending him nor, indeed, following the practice of patting hon. Gentlemen, or even right hon. Gentlemen, opposite on the back. It is sometimes a very good practice, although personally when I do it, I always like to have a poisoned poignard in the other hand. The right hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstood me, and thought I had said something which I did not say.
I begin with the right hon. and learned Member in another sense also. He argued that what we are really concerned with here is the defence of the rule of law. It is, indeed, a peculiar, almost unique, happiness for the House that, being concerned with a matter of the rule of law as it is entwined in the practical interchange of goods, we have as President of the Board of Trade one who has hardly forgotten how to be Attorney-General.
If the new kind of rule of law, the new kind of diplomatic arrangements which one can shortly characterise by saying "United Nations," does not provide more peace or more justice, or the appearance of more peace, justice and humanity, than the old methods of the concert of Europe provided, then the new kind of international arrangement is bound to break down, and is bound to break down with a result far more harmful that would have been if it had not come into existence.
I come to the main point to which I ask the President of the Board of Trade to pay attention. We all agree—it is what every speaker has said, I think—that it is important that this matter should not cause us to get across the United States of America; there should not be quarrels and bickerings. Indeed, it is more important now than probably most hon. Members know, because I expect most of them have not seen the tape and have not seen the long and elaborate attack on the United States Government


over the matter of stockpiling which was delivered earlier this afternoon by one of the retiring Ministers, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson).
We all agree with the practical importance of that matter. The main point on which I invite the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is this. His whole argument, for the first half of his speech, was that the recognition of China is a matter of recognition of facts. I respectfully and humbly agree. But what I want the President of the Board of Trade to ask himself, and his right hon. Friends, to consider, is whether the same argument does not mean that we have now landed ourselves in a logical and theoretical position where really there cannot be any right line before us.
If it is necessary when a set of men have, in practice, control of a country, that you are then bound to recognise them as the Government, it surely must be true also that where a Government is conducting military operations against you, you should recognise that as a state of war. Until almost the day before yesterday—certainly before the United Nations came into existence—that would have been universally agreed. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have by their change of language gone a longish way towards admitting it, because six months ago we used to hear about Chinese volunteers in Korea and that sort of thing. In the recent two or three weeks there has been no reluctance on the part of the Prime Minister or of the right hon. and learned Gentleman now at the Board of Trade to say that "China" is "conducting military operations," "partaking in unlawful aggression," and so on. Therefore, that a state of facts is in existence which hitherto would almost always have been taken to produce in law a state of war is not, I think, any longer debatable.
That I think is far more important than to decide exactly how much rubber, if any, we have let go through. I agree that that is of very great importance. And it is of very great importance to decide what would or would not endanger Hong Kong, but, with respect to the right hon. Gentleman and, I am sure, with the most itimate reasons for caring at least as much as he does about the safety of Hong Kong and the people there, I am bound to say that I thought it was a very dangerous exaggeration of the weight that

ought to be on Hong Kong in these calculations that he permitted himself.
It might well be that it was necessary to run the greatest risks that Hong Kong would be cut off from half her water supply and threequarters of her food supply even that Hong Kong might become untenable, and it might even be that that might be necessary and the right thing to do; and I thought that the latter half of the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman went very far towards assuming that that must be a decisive factor. I have every reason, public and personal, for being particularly tender about Hong Kong and the people there, and I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider that he was over-calling that argument.
To go back to the main point which I wished to put into the air of politics—if not in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—we shall continually be in situations where there is no right line to be taken, and out of which we shall scramble, if we do scramble, only as we are scrambling out of this one, at the cost of very considerable disagreements and frictions with those whom we all agree to be necessary allies; and we shall go on doing those things until there has been an attempt to think out systematically what happens when the United Nations is at war with a State. In those circumstances, are all these States which are co-operating under the direction of the United Nations at war with that State, or are they not?
I take it that there is no doubt that in the old days, if we were at war with a State, any of His Majesty's lieges who continued in commerce and amity with that State or its members, would have been guilty of high treason or some lesser crime. It is no use thinking that we can continually tumble into the sort of situation we have been in, in this regard, in the last few weeks, and continually scramble out of it with more or less of disagreement and friction, without in the long run our getting into a position in which we shall not be able to defend ourselves.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Richard Adams: I listened with very great attention to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), and I thought that he said, among many other things, two very surprising things.


First, he declared himself in favour of fixed elections, from which we understand that he wants the next General Election deferred until February, 1955.
The second surprising thing was in connection with what he said about exports from Japan to China. He said that he wanted to establish the principle that the right to export to an enemy country should be in proportion to the burden of fighting borne. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to think that over tomorrow morning, he will find that it follows logically from his argument that if one is fully engaged in fighting an enemy one should be able to export as much as one likes to him, but if one is completely at peace with the enemy one should not be allowed to export anything at all to him. That only goes to show how fallacious the right hon. Gentleman's argument was.
We have had a number of observations, speeches and inferential Questions on the subject of exports to China during the last few days. We have had comments and observations from the Opposition, we have had them from the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn), we have had the contribution of General MacArthur in America, and only yesterday we had the contribution of Senator Wiley and others in the Senate. Those comments and observations have all been one way—namely what this country has been doing and ought to be doing at the present time.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford spent all his time today saying what we should do in a common cause. I want to redress the balance by making a few factual observations on what has been happening in other parts of the world. I make these observations in no spirit of recrimination. I merely give these facts and figures so that we in this country can have a balanced outlook on what has been happening in the export trade to China during recent months.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade said, it is very difficult to define what are strategic war materials. I should say that today all materials are potential war materials. The other day bicycles were mentioned. It is apparent to me that in

a time of stress bicycles might become strategic materials. During the last war the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford spent much time and money in playing about with wood pulp and ice. I do not venture to suggest what he might be able to do if he were told that he could only have two million bicycles with which to play around.
In considering the war materials available to China today. I want to erect two back-cloths as a background against which we can look at what has been happening in recent months. The first back-cloth is the United States Lend Lease Aid to China up to 30th June, 1949. Up to that time the United States had sent to China no less than 1,600,000 dollars worth of aid, including war ordnance stores 271 million dollars, aircraft 231 million dollars, tanks, and other vehicles 190 million dollars and miscellaneous military stores 147 million dollars.
The second back-cloth is that of United States exports to China. The United States exported goods worth 56 million dollars to China in 1939, 465 million dollars in 1946, 353 million dollars in 1947, 273 million dollars in 1948 and 83 million dollars in 1949. And the figure in 1950 was 38 million dollars, compared with a mere 10 million dollars from this country. During 1947 and 1948 America was supplying 80 per cent. or more of China's requirements in commercial aircraft, motors and spare parts, radios, acids, including nitric and sulphuric acid, cameras and films. I suggest to the Committee that against the background of these enormous supplies over the years since the war General MacArthur is like a man who complains about the loss of water from a faulty dripping tap when he has himself left a tap running full on for several days and nights.
To turn to what has been happening in recent months, I invite the Committee to consider United States exports to Asia in January of this year as compared with January, 1950. United States exports to the whole of Asia in January this year amounted to 141 million dollars, and that was 20 million dollars more than in January, 1950. To Western Asia she sent 34 million dollars, compared with 25 million dollars in January, 1950, an increase of 9 million dollars. To South and South-Eastern Asia, which includes India,


Burma, Thailand and other countries surrounding China, she sent 66 million dollars' worth of goods as compared with 48 million dollars' worth in 1950. This represents 18 million dollars' worth of goods more sent in January this year, six months after the war in Korea started, than in the corresponding month six months before the war started.
In Eastern Asia itself, which contains China and Hong Kong as its main importers, her exports dropped from 49 million dollars to 42 million dollars, a reduction of only 7 million dollars, even though there was a drop of 13 million dollars in her exports to China and Hong Kong. One might well wonder how it was that the United States was able to send 20 million dollars' worth of goods more to Asia six months after the war in Korea began as compared with six months before it started.
For a moment, I want to turn to the United States exports to China itself. Between January and September last year, her exports were running at 34 million dollars compared with 64 million dollars in 1949, a drop of 30 million dollars. But what happened in October, after the war with Korea had started? The exports in the month of October rose to 955,000 dollars as compared with 261,000 dollars in October, 1949—an increase of four times the amount of exports to China from the United States in October last year.
In November of last year the exports from the United States to China rose to 2,800,000 dollars as against only 550,000 dollars in November, 1949. In other words, in November last year the United States sent to China five times the amount of exports that she sent her in the previous year. If we take the exports from the United States to China from July to December last year—that is, after the fighting had started in Korea—they totalled no less than 16 million dollars compared with exports from this country of a mere 10 million dollars for the whole year. And that included no less than 13 million lb. of scrap rubber during 1950.
If we look at the United States exports to Hong Kong, we find that they were higher in October and November last year than they were in the corresponding months of the previous year. Included in the exports to Hong Kong direct from

United States in November—12 million dollars worth—there were petrol products 261,000 dollars, metal products 552,000 dollars, machinery 828,000 dollars, chemicals and pharmaceuticals 5,900,000 dollars and miscellaneous stores, including cameras and films, 1,800,000 dollars. The United States actually moved more materials into Hong Kong during last November than we supplied to the whole of China during the whole of last year.
Exports from the United States to Japan also increased after the war in Korea commenced. Between January and September last year they were down by no less than 66 million dollars to 305 million dollars. For the month of October, however, they amounted to 36 million dollars, an additional four million dollars compared with October, 1949. In November they went up to 35 million dollars, an increase of no less than 11 million dollars over the figure for the previous November, and even in December the exports were running at 42 million dollars as compared with 38 million dollars in December, 1949. In other words, the exports of the United States to Japan in three months after the war had started in Korea, exceeded those of the corresponding period of the previous year by no less than 19 million dollars.
I now turn to the exports from Japan to China and Hong Kong. The figures I have given so far have been drawn from the published statistics of the Department of Commerce in the United States, and those I am going to give now are drawn from the Mitsubishi Economic Survey, which is an official publication in Japan authorised by the United States Government. This particular copy was published in April of this year.

Major Legge-Bourke: Major Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely) rose——

Mr. Adams: I cannot give way, because I have only three or four minutes left and I want to get a bit more material over. I am going to quote from this Economic Survey published with the permission of the American authorities in Japan, just two short quotations. In its report on foreign trade in 1950 it says, in regard to the export trade from Japan:
The principal export commodities were iron and steel and machinery.


The second quotation I want to make reports a
…rapid increase in exports to China and Hong Kong since the outbreak of hostilities in Korea.
The figures that they give show that Japan exported to China between January and October of last year an average of 1.4 million dollars a month. In November, however, long after the war in Korea had been going on, those exports from Japan to China rose to 4.7 million dollars, and in the month of December, despite the fact that an embargo was placed on the sixth day of that month, the exports were 2.9 million dollars. The total exports from Japan to China last year were no less than 22 million dollars compared with the exports of this country, about which numerous complaints have been made, of less than 10 million pounds.
I should like the Committee now to take note of this very simple comparison. If we take the exports from Japan to China in the three months—December of last year and January and February of this year—they come to 4.3 million dollars, whereas the exports from this country for the three months January to March amount to 3.6 million. Japan also exported to China and Hong Kong between January and October of last year no less than 45 million dollars' worth of goods.
There are many other figures that I should give, but I have to sit down in a minute or two so I will have to omit them. I should like, however, to give the exports from Japan to Hong Kong. Between January and May, 1950, the exports from Japan to Hong Kong were running at 2,900 million yen, and at that rate the figure for the whole year would have been 7,000 million yen. From June to September, after the war in Korea had started, no less than 5,843 million yens' worth of goods were exported from Japan to Hong Kong, equal to a yearly rate of 17,500 million yen. In other words, 16 million dollars' worth of trade was done during that short period after the war in Korea had started, and the rate of exports were more than doubled.
As I said at the beginning, I have not given these facts and figures in any spirit of recrimination, but simply to show that when arguments are being conducted in a glass house great care should be taken

by all sides. Some irresponsible people talk about applying economic sanctions to China or about an economic and naval blockade of China, but it must be remembered that more than two-thirds of its frontiers are surrounded by great land masses. Such a suggestion, if carried out, would, therefore, only stop up one tiny hole in a great sieve.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I suggest putting the events of these last few months on one side, while recognising that there have been faults not all on one side. We should like, for instance, to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford and the hon. Member for Northfield drawing attention to some of the facts which I have had to skip through so quickly this evening. In conclusion, may I say that it is time we put mutual recriminations on one side and got down to solving by diplomacy a real and lasting settlement of the troubles in the Far East?

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: The facts given by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Adams), if facts they be, are not under our control. But the facts to which I shall refer in the five minutes at my disposal are certainly under our control. We have had a farrago of mistakes from the Government Front Bench from the moment—[Interruption.] I have only five minutes. Do hon. Members opposite want to gag me?
The President of the Board of Trade told us that from the 7th or 9th of April exports of rubber had been curtailed by this country, but the position was this—and I am quoting from "The Times" of Wednesday, 9th May—as given in a statement emanating from the Hong Kong Government. The facts are that 3,265 tons of rubber were received by China in April, and that Hong Kong, which sells most of its rubber imports to China, received 5,846 tons, a total, almost all of which went to China, of 9,000 tons to the value of £5 million odd. That is for last month alone.
Let us take the statement made on 29th January, 1951, in the House, when the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said:


We are imposing restrictions on the export of strategic materials at present. [HON. MEMBERS: 'Rubber?'] Including Rubber."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 572.]
The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) and the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) were largely responsible for raising this matter. The next day the Under-Secretary got up and admitted he made a mistake. He said:
Although we keep a close watch on the movement of rubber, we do not, in fact, subject natural rubber to export control on purely strategic grounds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 730.]
Then, on 6th February, the Prime Minister himself said:
As regards rubber, I understand there is not a great amount going."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 1526.]
Let me give the Committee the facts as to what was "going" and the price. I confirmed these figures with the Colonial Office this morning, but they can be checked by hon. Members through references to HANSARD. HANSARD reported on 12th April the exports of rubber from the Federation of Malaya and Singapore to China as 77,624 tons in 1950 and an estimate of 46,500 tons in the first quarter of 1951. HANSARD of 25th April reported exports to China between July, 1950, and March, 1951, as 120,000 tons. That means that in the first six months of 1950, before the war started, only 4,000 tons or rubber were exported to China. In the month of February, when the Prime Minister said:
As regards rubber, I understand there is not a great amount going.
the figures show that twice or three times as much rubber was going there for that one month alone, as compared with the whole of the first six months of 1950. There is no point in the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade smiling. He has been proved wrong before.
Let me turn to the question of profits made as a result of the war. The profits made out of this war would make Sir Basil Zaharoff turn in his grave in envy. The average price of rubber in March, 1950, was 1s. 4½d.; the average price one year afterwards was 5s. 5d.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Private enterprise.

Mr. Blackburn: We will deal with that. The price had risen to four times as much as it was a year ago.
I have only one minute left at my disposal, but I wish to repeat a statement I made on 7th May in the House, which the former Attorney-General immediately denied. I said:
…that no less than £100 million of exports have gone to China since the start of this war in Korea.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 1604.]
The fact is that, on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own figures, vastly more than £100 million of exports have gone to China since the start of the war in Korea. I have no further time left, but I will take the Adjournment which I have later in the month, to prove these facts.
The fact of the matter is that a vastly greater amount of rubber has gone to China than so far has been disclosed, and it seems to me that it is high time we in this country faced up to these facts and brought this to an end, in view of the great extent to which our personal honour is involved. Above all, there is the need for America and ourselves to come together in order to stop something which I believe is contributing to a future war, and to help to safeguard the peace of the world.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn) has made certain charges which must be cleared up sooner or later, and I hope they will be cleared up this evening, because if not, we shall have to revert to them later. Some of the figures which he has given are new, as for instance the question of exports to Hong Kong and exports through Hong Kong to China.

Sir H. Shawcross: What is new? The hon. Gentleman says there is something new in the figures just quoted by the hon. Member for Northfield. What is new in them?

Mr. Maclay: What I am trying to get clear is the figures given to this House. It is not my quarrel, although I am perfectly prepared to pick it up.

Sir H. Shawcross: But the hon. Member is a responsible member of this House.

Mr. Maclay: I understand that this is a matter for His Majestys Government and the hon. Member for Northfield. It is not for us to distinguish between who is responsible——

Sir H. Shawcross: I am asking the hon. Member what figures are new so that I can deal with them. The hon. Member is winding up for the Opposition.

Mr. Churchill: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman entitled to say which members of the Opposition are to be considered responsible for it and which are not? Promotion has gone to the head of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Maclay: There is undue sensitivity on the Government Front Bench today. What I was trying to say was that the hon. Member for Northfield has given figures, given by the Government, for exports through Hong Kong to China. In addition there are figures of rubber sent to Hong Kong, which had not been given by the Government.

Sir H. Shawcross: I dealt with that point when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was speaking, and I say it was totally untrue.

Mr. Maclay: I am sorry, but I did not know there was a positive denial.

Sir H. Shawcross: Surely the right hon. Gentleman actually rose in the course of my speech in order to clarify the point. I said that my information from the Colonial Office, supported by the rubber trade bible, showed it to be totally untrue.

Mr. Maclay: If the President of the Board of Trade says that he has satisfied himself that that is so, then we are finished with it. If there had not been all this fuss we could have been finished with it three minutes ago.
Obviously we are very glad indeed that the Government have finally stopped the shipment of rubber. Also we are glad to learn that even more efforts are going to be made to work closely with the United States on agreed lines. Those are two matters we have wanted to see done for a long time, and the substance of my speech is bound to be the efforts we on this side of the House have made for months and months, to get certain things cleared up, and to find out what on earth was going

on. Now at long last what we want has been done. Unfortunately, like so many other actions of our present Government it is late and much mischief has been done.
I am not going into the figures of the exports of rubber into Hong Kong. I really think that they can get badly out of proportion. What matters is the effect of the Government's handling of the situation on Britain's reputation in the world, and on our Anglo-American traditions of friendship which are, I submit once more, about the most important things today for the free world. Whatever the merits of the argument may be on blockade, economic sanctions or the other great issues which have been under discussion, there has never been any doubt about the necessity of preventing to the best of our ability, obvious strategic materials getting into the hands of people who are actively fighting against United Nations troops, including our own.
There were certain objectives which should have been absolutely clear. The first was to define "strategic materials." It should not have been a case of realisation after the event. The second should have been to agree a list of strategic materials with our major ally, the United States. I know that this might not have been easy, but what I am suggesting now is the minimum, if we were not to have endless trouble. Even this afternoon the President of the Board of Trade has admitted that our list is not agreed with the United States. I think that was his statement. I noted with very great care that he said that we accepted responsibility for our list and that it was not an agreed list. There were consultations with the United States, and all that, but the fact remains that we have not got agreement and if we had, there would not have been all this fuss about rubber. We have never been able to find out for months past from one right hon. Gentleman or another whether rubber was regarded as a strategic material. I will support that statement by quotations.
The third objective was to persuade other members of the United Nations to act in concert with us. Before there was any hope of doing that, there really had to be substantial agreement between Britain and the United States. The next and exceedingly important objective was to make certain that the methods of control were not only effective but were seen


to be effective. The fifth objective, and the most obvious one of the whole lot, was to take every possible step to see that the appropriate—I use the word deliberately—publicity was given to everything that we were doing.
Not on one of those objectives have the Government succeeded in doing a single thing until this afternoon when we have made some progress. That is the major part of our charge. As I said a little time ago, I shall not go into the great policy issues because there is not time and because they have already been covered this afternoon. But I want to look into the handling by the Government Front Bench of this situation. It is not through lack of worry on the part of the Opposition that this situation has been allowed to arise. Apart from the general debate last September, the first question on the subject which I can trace was asked as far back as 18th October. It starts the whole story. On that occasion, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies:
If he will take steps to ensure that all trade in materials of potential war value between Hong Kong and Communist China is stopped.
The reply came through from the Colonial Minister:
Control over the exports from Hong Kong to all destinations of a list of strategic materials similar to those whose export from the United Kingdom is controlled has been introduced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 2039.]
That sounded not too bad. Something appeared to be happening.
What happens next? May I point out that between 29th January and the end of April no fewer than 16 Questions were asked by hon. Members on this side of the House, most of them touching on rubber. After the somewhat optimistic statement in October, I can find nothing until 29th January. Then the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made the statement to which the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn) has just referred. Of course, that had to be followed up by a contradiction. When the Minister came back to the House he said that he had been wrong and that he had not realised what the position of rubber was. That theme was picked up by the Prime Minister. I must

give this quotation in full. The Prime Minister said, on 6th February:
It is the general policy of His Majesty's Government to watch, and in appropriate cases to control, the export of all strategic goods and materials…. As regards rubber, I understand there is not a great amount going—not much beyond the ordinary demands of that country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 1527 and 1528.]
That statement on 6th February has to be considered in the light of what we now know was happening.
There is still worse to come. That formula: "watching closely and in appropriate cases controlling" appears time and time again from the most astonishing variety of Ministers. It is the one thing upon which they were unanimous. The Minister of State for the Colonies used it on 14th February; the President of the Board of Trade on 15th February and the Secretary for Overseas Trade on 13th March. All had the same formula that they were watching like mad; and now we know what was happening while they were watching.
Now we get to the recent events which immediately led up to the present debate. The Minister of Defence—I see that he is not here but I make no departure from what I propose to say—showed that he did not know what strategic materials were and had no idea that rubber was involved. He permitted himself, in one of those rash moods that I think he sometimes regrets afterwards, to make by implication a most grave charge against private traders. His actual words were:
It is quite impossible for me to say what private exporters might send to China."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 1202.]
That was a most astonishing thing for a responsible Minister to say and I hope that the Minister who will reply tonight will make it dead clear that every suggestion and recommendation of the British Government or British Colonial Governments has been honoured up to the hilt by British merchants all over the world. I think it will be impossible to find a case of a shipment where a British merchant has not acted in accordance with the advice of his Government—if he could get it.
There is another thing which is causing the greatest concern at this moment in London and in other parts of the world. Firms have written in to the Board of


Trade in the past—I hope that the new incumbent will be better in this respect—trying to get clear guidance on what they should and should not do, and they have not been able to get it. That is quite definite. I can support it with facts.
We now come to the Prime Minister's last statement to the House which was definitely surprising. He came to the rescue of the Minister of Defence, and when he was answering a supplementary question whether he considered rubber to be a strategic material. He gave this reply, after the subject of rubber had for months and months been becoming more acute both in this House and internationally:
It might or might not be. We have in fact an absolute prohibition at the present time on rubber.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 1434.]
He did correct that statement. He said:
With regard to the exports of rubber, they have been the subject of export licensing since 9th April, to prevent undue and enlarged quantities being sent to any particular destination. But there has not been and cannot be, I think, an absolute prohibiton to see that no rubber whatever gets to China."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 1437.]
That looks rather odd, only a week ago, now that we have today's decision. [Interruption.] The only way it reads suggests that the Prime Minister may have intended to say that it was an extremely difficult thing to stop any rubber getting into China, but that is not the implication of his answer, as anyone interested in the matter can see by reading it. The whole point in this dreary list—and I must be very quick now—in regard to this critical subject, is that any Government really sensitive to what was going on in the world and to what could flare up into a real danger, would have spotted that rubber would have to be watched carefully.
Which one of all those Ministers whom I have mentioned is really responsible? Dead seriously—my whole speech is dead serious but this point is more serious than the rest—will the Minister, when he replies, be able to tell us who accepts prime responsibility in this question of strategic raw materials? Is it the Foreign Office, is it the President of the Board of Trade, is it the Colonial Office, is it—heaven forbid—the Minister of Defence, is it—? One can go on because we have had all these

people answering questions on this subject, and in a matter as critical as this there really must be one man who will provide the same answer to everything.
One does not want to be too extreme about certain things in a debate like this, but I feel so strongly about this that I must say it. There may be room for argument as to whether this Government has the right to carry on from the domestic point of view; but I ask calmly and reasonably whether, with international tension as high as it is, with the international relations of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and the United States of such absolutely vital importance, is it not essential that Britain should have a Government which is properly organised, which knows what is happening, which has time to "feel" what is happening in the world. Ministers at present have no time to feel what is happening—they get reports sent in, read them in a hurry, and rush off to a meeting to decide what to do about resigning Ministers.
Can this kind of Government possibly give the world the lead which Britain ought to be giving at this moment? The main case against the Government is not so much whether relatively small amounts of rubber ought or ought not to be stopped. The real case is, once again, that the way in which the situation has been handled has done very serious mischief to Britain's reputation throughout the world.

6.42 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Dugdale): Both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) have talked as if the Government have in some way behaved in a lighthearted manner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Light-headed."] I wish to explain in a few words some of the considerations involved, which I think have not been fully appreciated as yet by hon. Members opposite. The Leader of the Opposition said, if I took his words down correctly, "Try to put yourself in the position of others with whom you have to deal." He said, "Think of the Belgians, the Dutch, the Norwegians; they are in a difficult position." He implied that they were nearer to the danger zone and, therefore, that they had to be particularly careful, and that we had to think about them.
I would ask him at the same time to remember that we also have to think of the people of Hong Kong and Malaya, who are already in the front line. That is a point we must never cease to remember in respect of all these considerations. As the President of the Board of Trade stated earlier in the debate, His Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that the quantity of rubber sent from British colonial and dependent territories to China during the first four months of this year is sufficient to meet the legitimate needs of that country for the whole of this year. They have, therefore, decided to request the Governments of the Federation of Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak to prohibit any further export of rubber from their territories to China for the rest of the year. The Governments will also be requested to limit shipments to Hong Kong to the quantities which the Governor of Hong Kong states are required for the legitimate needs of the rubber manufacturing industry in that territory.
That, as I say, has been done in spite of the fact that we realise that it makes great difficulties indeed for the people of the territories concerned. It is all very well for us to talk about this matter from our point of view. It is not we ourselves here who will have to lose this trade, have to bear this deprivation, but the people of Malaya and Hong Kong. We must realise the position from their point of view.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: May I interrupt for a moment——

Hon. Members: The right hon. Gentleman has just come in.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The Minister has given way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bracken: Over a year ago the right hon. Gentleman declared in the House that there was no necessity to reinforce our troops in Malaya at a time when it was clear to everyone that the troops in Malaya were in great peril. What does the right hon. Gentleman know about Malaya?

Mr. Dugdale: That is a very cheap observation. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has taken a very active interest during this debate. He has presumably now come in to make that remark. So far as what I said last year is

concerned, I said that at that time the number of troops there was sufficient. Their numbers have certainly had to be reinforced. Nothing is permanent in war, and we have naturally to make alterations in our plans from time to time as war proceeds. That applies to any country making war.
The decision which my right hon. and learned Friend announced today is a grave one. I do not want in any way to minimise its gravity both to Malaya and to Hong Kong. I do not think it is right that it should be minimised. We realise that we are asking them to make a unique sacrifice, but we also realise that they will agree with us that it is wrong in principle and in practice for us to supply what is in fact a raw material vital to the prosecution of war by the Communists. The Communist war in Malaya and in Korea is, as they realise just as well as we do, one. Anything that helps the Communists in Korea to win is obviously a blow to all those gallant men and women who are today fighting so magnificently against Communism in Malaya.
His Majesty's Government pledge themselves to do two things. First, to take over all outstanding contracts. Second, to do all in their power to persuade those countries, such as Ceylon and Indonesia, which so far have not imposed an embargo, to do so at the earliest possible moment. That is something that we owe to the people of Malaya, and is something which should be stated here.
There has been some criticism from time to time from hon. Members opposite of Hong Kong and Malaya on the grounds that they were giving aid and comfort to the enemy in Korea. I wish to say in the strongest possible terms that His Majesty's Government are deeply appreciative of the sacrifices that the people of both countries have made in the common cause. It is easy to criticise when one is a long distance away. The position appears very different when one is right in the front line, as they are.
We are not asking Malaya and Hong Kong to take action which we ourselves are not taking. Our decision to ban the export of war materials and a number of materials which might, though not munitions of war, help in the prosecution of the war, has been one that has hurt a number of people in the United Kingdom. But we have thought it right


to take it in spite of its effect on British industry.
There has been a tendency, too, in some quarters—not in this country—to make light of the role played by Hong Kong and Malaya in the campaign against Communism. The spotlight has been concentrated on Korea. People have tended to forget what is being done in these other countries. Such an attitude is grossly unfair. My right hon. and learned Friend gave an extract from the list of some 200 items of industrial equipment on the exportation of which to China, Hong Kong has imposed a total prohibition. That is a fine record for a country which is right on the frontier of China and is dependent to such a peculiar extent on food and raw materials which can be obtained only from China.
In this connection I should like to add a further example. No later than 27th April new legislation was brought into force in Hong Kong to prevent evasion of the restrictions. Those regulations provide for, among other things, the control over the movements of strategic materials in the Colony itself, for heavier penalties for contravention of the regulations, for seizure of conveyances found illegally transporting such materials, and that the burden of proof should be laid on the accused that smuggling was not being attempted. Those are very stringent provisions indeed which Hong Kong has introduced in recent weeks.
I turn to Malaya. In this war with the Communists the people of Malaya, and in particular the rubber producers themselves—this is a point which must be emphasised—have suffered very heavy casualties. Many of them are smallholders. A very large number of people who will be affected by the decision announced today are smallholders. They are working very hard day in and day out to produce rubber, and they will suffer considerably. Here I should like once more to pay a tribute to the steadfastness with which they have faced these dangers and continued to supply the world with a commodity which is essential to civilised life as we know it today.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: If the supplies which the right hon. Gentleman says have been going to China are prevented from going there, is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that those

supplies will not be bought by other parts of the world? In what way will the smallholders in Malaya suffer?

Mr. Dugdale: The Government have said that they will pre-empt purchases on all contracts at present outstanding. As regards future contracts, it means the loss of a market the rubber producers had before. They fear that it could, added to various other tendencies, lead to a downward movement in the price of rubber, and they have natural grounds for fearing that. But I am sure that the rubber producers and their fellow citizens in Malaya will understand that what we are asking them to do is to deprive the Communists, who are our enemies in that other war, of a commodity which is essential for them if they are to carry on the struggle.
These two countries have played as great a part in the campaign against Communism as any country in the world, just as great as the part that has been played by this country, or, indeed, I may add, by the U.S.A. Their deeds should receive just recognition from all those who are fighting Communism whether by military or economic action.
It is because I think that this should be put on record, and because I realise the difficulties that they will have to face as a result of today's decision, that I have spoken in these terms, not with a view to making any party or political point in the House, but simply to express the view that we here should realise what we are calling upon our friends, indeed in many cases our relatives, in these Colonies to do. We are asking them to do much; we should realise that they have already done much, and we should be thankful.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: With your permission, Sir Charles, and with that of the Committee, I should like to make a personal statement. In the course of the speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), I interrupted him because of some disagreement with what he said. My impression of what he said was that I am alleged to have said—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong in that impression—something calculated to discredit General MacArthur. That was my impression. I resented it because I could not remind myself of anything that I had said which was derogatory to the General.
The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to convey to me a report from "The Times" of 23rd April. However, in the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made, he appeared to have overlooked the context of the setting in which the speech was made and the matter with which I was dealing. Perhaps I may have the permission of the Committee to read a rather longer extract from "The New York Times" of 23rd April. The heading of their report is "Shinwell optimistic on outlook in Korea." It states:
Defence Minister Emanuel Shinwell said today that the removal of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur gave the United Nations and representatives of the Chinese Communist Government a new chance to negotiate peace in Korea.
That was the subject with which I was dealing. The report continued:
Addressing his constituents here, Mr. Shinwell said:
'It might be that, with the removal of General MacArthur from the Korean atmosphere, conditions may improve but we cannot tell. I am bound to say that I regret that the Peiping Government is not more responsive to the suggestions that have been made to negotiate peace in Korea.
I think that opportunity has been present for some considerable time, but here again is the opportunity for the United Nations representatives and the representatives of the Peiping Government to gather together to bring this Korean affair to an end'.
That was the statement I made and my submission is that there is nothing in that statement that was derogatory to General MacArthur. Certainly, there was nothing I said which seemed to imply that I was casting some doubt on the capacity of General MacArthur to conduct military operations, because that was not in my mind. I was dealing exclusively with the prospect of re-opening negotiations with a view to promoting peace through United Nations in Korea. And "The Times" report, a somewhat shorter report, I should imagine conveys the same impression.
It may be that my impression of what the right hon. Gentleman said to me, or about me, was wrong, and if so I ask that I should be forgiven for gaining a wrong impression. On the other hand, it may be that the right hon. Gentleman, having seen the shorter report, thought I had said something which was calculated both to throw discredit on General MacArthur in the military sphere, and also to disturb

our relations with the United States. That was indeed far from my mind.

Mr. Churchill: I think it is a good thing that the right hon. Gentleman has made this statement to the House, and has made it clear that he did not wish in any way to reflect on the military capacity of General MacArthur. I do not think I misquoted his actual words. I see that they were in the "Glasgow Herald" report:
It may be with the removal of General MacArthur from the Korean atmosphere the situation there might improve but we cannot tell.
Then followed what he said about regretting that the Peking Government were not more responsive. And the Press Association report is:
It may be that with the removal of General MacArthur from Korea the atmosphere might improve, but we cannot tell.
And in "The Times," which was the report I had in my mind, it said:
It may be that with the removal of General MacArthur the situation would improve.
What I said was that he had said that now, perhaps, things will go better in Korea, once General MacArthur had been dismissed—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—well, wait a minute. Then the right hon. Gentleman got up and, I am bound to say, he did seem completely to misunderstand the words which had just come out of my mouth and the House had listened to, because he said that I had assented that he had declared that the dismissal of General MacArthur should be brought about because it would be of advantage to us. I said nothing of the sort. I said absolutely nothing of the sort. I am sorry that he should not be able to follow the absolutely plain English of what I said. Then he was very angry and I repeated that he had said "perhaps things will now go better in Korea since General MacArthur had been removed."
These are, I think, perfectly fair and straightforward quotations from what was published in the public Press. Then the right hon. Gentleman said a lot of hard things—how I should be ashamed of myself, and all that. Well I am bound to say, on that, that I consider it is a very good thing he has made it clear—as it certainly was not clear to those who read the papers and who cannot have verbatim reports—that he was not referring to General MacArthur's military


capacity; and what he meant by what he said was that he hoped better conditions for negotiations would be established now that General MacArthur was no longer on the spot, acting, as it were, in a political capacity.
If that was what he meant, it is a good thing that that should be known in the United States; but I do not accept the slightest reproach for what I said in quoting him. I have given the fullest quotations both from what I said and what appeared in the Press where anyone could read it. I think that the remarks the right hon. Gentleman has just made remove from my mind any unfavourable impression I might have derived from his anger and from his telling me that I ought to be ashamed of myself. I expunge them entirely from my mind, and I hope that any impression which may have got abroad in the United States and done harm through this misinterpretation of his words, will also be removed by what he said.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"—[Mr. Wilkins]—put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EX-PRISONERS OF WAR, JAPAN (COMPENSATION)

7.2 p.m.

Brigadier Smyth: I beg to move.
That this House is of the opinion that His Majesty's Government should give very early consideration to the claim of the British Far Eastern prisoners of war, and the dependants of those who died in captivity, for compensation from the Japanese through treaty or by other methods for the brutalities, indignities and gross under-nourishment to which they were subjected in flagrant contravention of The Hague Convention, on similar lines to the action already taken by the United States Government or that decided upon by the Australian Government in this connection.
This Motion has stood on the Order Paper for some little time in the names of 297 Members on both sides of the House. I would suggest that it has just as wide sympathy and support in the country as in this House. The Motion was put down as a result of considerable discussion in the constituencies over a fairly long period, and then of certain discussions within the precincts of this House.
The Far Eastern prisoners of war have for some time been trying to bring their case to the notice of this House and to the country. But it is not easy for 35,000 ex-Service men living in different parts of the country to state their case to this House. Eventually, with the warm support of ex-Service mens' associations and regimental associations in different parts of the country they were encouraged to form their own local associations, and last December a central sub-committee sat in London under the chairmanship of General Percival who was our Commander in Singapore.
Early in the present year that sub-committee invited the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and myself to attend their meeting and hear their case; and if we agreed to it, to try to arrange that they should be able to state their case to an all-party meeting in this House. That we did. We arranged an all-party meeting on 7th March at which General Percival and some of his colleagues stated the case of the Far Eastern prisoners of war. It was a very representative meeting of Members of this House. The meeting decided to accept the claim of the Far Eastern prisoners in principle, and they set up a subcommittee, with myself as chairman, to go into the matter in rather more detail and to report back to another meeting, which we held on 21st March.
I would emphasise the non-party nature of these discussions. Everyone who attended those meetings can testify that there was nothing of party politics which entered into them. We did and do feel most sincerely that this matter which affects so deeply a body of men who suffered so much in the cause of this country should not be in any way a matter of party politics. I will take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, who has supported me so generously and wholeheartedly in all these discussions. I assure him that had he been chairman of these meetings, I would have supported him just as loyally and wholeheartedly.
I hope very much that the House and the Government will accept this Motion, and that if it is not accepted and there is a vote, it will be entirely a free vote. I would express our gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) who has given us this half Supply Day, without


which we would not have been able to debate this matter at all.
In a sense this Motion was born just over seven years ago when my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, then Foreign Secretary, made a very grave announcement in this House regarding what was happening to our British prisoners of war in the hands of the Japanese. That statement was considered to be so serious that it was made simultaneously in London and Washington. He disclosed the ghastly conditions under which the Allied prisoners were actually having to work, and the present Minister of Defence—at that time a back bench Member of the Labour Party—in supporting the Foreign Secretary said that this statement would shock the whole of the civilised world.
Later, in 1944, the then Secretary of State for War made another very grave announcement in this House regarding the dreadful conditions under which our prisoners of war were having to work on the notorious Siam—Burma railway, which was generally known as "The railway of death." He said at that time that we intended to hold the Japanese responsible. That is exactly what we propose shall be done. We intend to hold the Japanese responsible for the deliberate brutality exercised on our British Far Eastern prisoners of war, as a result of which no less than 10,000 of them died in captivity.
We cannot hold an enemy nation responsible for killing and wounding our own troops in battle. That is a risk which the fighting man has to take. But we have laid down, the civilised nations have laid down, very carefully, certain rules which should apply to helpless prisoners of war. They are laid down in the Hague Convention of 1907 which the Japanese signed, and in the Geneva Convention of 1929 which they signed, but which was not ratified up to the beginning of the war. But in February, 1942, they did send a telegram to the British Government via the Argentine saying that they would agree to the Clauses in the Geneva Convention which applied to prisoners of war. Article III of the Hague Convention lays down that a belligerent which violates this provision with regard to prisoners of war is liable to pay compensation.
This Motion is framed on very broad lines. We purposely do not try to tie the Government down very closely to any

particular measures which we consider should be taken. It simply asks that very early consideration should be given to the claim of the ex-prisoners, either through the Peace Treaty or by any other method which the Government may decide, on the same lines as have been adopted by the United States and the Australian Governments for their prisoners. When we say "on the same lines," we do not mean that those lines should be followed exactly. We hope that the Government may perhaps have better lines of their own. In 1948, the American Government passed legislation to compensate their ex-prisoners, and did, in fact, pay them a certain sum of money based on a dollar a day for every day of captivity. They took that money, we understand, from frozen Japanese assets.
Australia set up a committee in 1950 to consider the claims of their ex-prisoners of war rather on the same lines as those which we are asking our own Government to follow with regard to British prisoners. They did not recommend exactly the same procedure as the United States Government had followed, but they did recognise the claim in principle, and they have passed a Cabinet resolution that their delegates at the Japanese Peace Conference shall press a claim for money to be paid in compensation to their ex-prisoners of war.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: May I interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend? He has spoken as if action taken in regard to ex-prisoners of the Japanese was only in the cases of the United States and Australia. I think there is some doubt in the House whether that is so or not. Could my hon. and gallant Friend make it clear whether it is so limited?

Brigadier Smyth: I understand that the Australian Government will first press its claim in the Japanese Peace Treaty discussions, and, probably, in the discussions on the German Treaty as well, but they are still discussing that matter, and I do not think they have arrived at actual finality. The American Government have actually made a claim, into the details of which I do not want to enter, because, obviously, we cannot follow on the same lines as they have taken.
The British Far Eastern prisoners-of-war claim is based upon the sum of 3s. a day for every day of captivity, and we


reckon that that will amount to a sum of between £9 million and £10 million, which, as sums go in international finance, and as compared to the sums we have been talking about today, is a very small amount. Our own prisoners of war organisations have actually suggested that it should be a flat-rate claim, and that the same amount should be paid to every ex-prisoner of war, simply because it would obviously be very difficult, and might involve a whole lot of committees, to go into the case of every ex-prisoner.
All of us who listened to the claim when it was put forward by General Percival and his committee at the all-party meeting were quite clear on certain important points. First of all, it is not a claim of any sort on the British taxpayer. Let me make that absolutely clear. On no account will they accept money from the British taxpayer. If it cannot be obtained from the Japanese, they do not want anything at all. Secondly, it does not preclude other ex-prisoners of war, either of the Germans or the Italians, making their own claims for compensation if they think that those nations contravened the laws and customs of war to such an extent as to make a good case.
Thirdly, I should like to be absolutely emphatic on the point that the Far Eastern prisoners of war are not claiming any sort of amenities in the way of pensions. I feel that there have been misapprehensions about this among people who did not attend the meeting, but the ex-prisoners have no intention of competing with other ex-Service men in the way of pensions. We have perfectly good machinery in the Ministry of Pensions for dealing with this matter, and I think it would be utterly wrong to try to claim any preference in the way of war pensions, either as wounds or disability pensions, for the ex-prisoners of war.
I am quite sure that, in that respect, all ex-Service men should be treated alike, and the Far Eastern prisoners of war would be the last to claim that they should have any preference as far as war pensions are concerned. It may well be that the medical categories or some of the ex-prisoners of war will need re-examination, but that is an entirely different matter, which I suggest should be taken up with their own local Members of Parliament and brought to the notice of the Ministry of Pensions.

Dr. King: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make quite clear that the claim is not only for living ex-prisoners, but also on behalf of the dependents of those who did not come back?

Brigadier Smyth: That is the case, and it is very clearly put in the Motion.
This is a bill submitted by the British Far Eastern prisoners of war to the Japanese people for atrocities committed in contravention of all the laws and usages of war, but that bill can only be presented through the good offices of the British Government. Obviously, it is not one that the Far Eastern prisoners could lodge themselves. I was not a prisoner of war myself, so that I have no ulterior motive in pressing this claim, but I was in command of troops out in the East at the time, and so I can view this matter with sympathy, knowing the local conditions at the time and yet without being so concerned with it, as I should have been had I been a prisoner myself. I saw a number of these men go into captivity, and I saw some of them come out of it at the end of the war, and that was not a pleasant thing to remember.
I want to remind the House for a moment of the conditions appertaining in the war against the Japanese at that time, because there is a tendency in some quarters to attach some blame to the ex-prisoners for having been captured. I should like to remind the House that the vast majority of them were taken prisoner in that period of the first few months of the Japanese war which was so disastrous for the British cause. It was a time when the Japanese were sweeping all before them, when they were sweeping over South-East Asia in a task for which they had been trained and prepared for years, and those were for Britain some of the darkest days of the war.
The Japanese chose their time carefully, when we were stretched to the limit with our war with Germany, and I would say quite definitely, although I was rather at the receiving end at the time, that the confusion and the lack of material which existed at that time was nobody's fault at all. It was a situation which was unavoidable in view of the fact that we were stretched to the limit in our war against Germany, at the time the Japanese attacked. But there was considerable


confusion in India and the whole of that area at the time when these men went into captivity.
Although I do not want to quote personal examples, perhaps I may be allowed to give just one in order to give the House an idea of the position. The 17th Division, which I was commanding at the time the Japanese War started, was a new division of Indian and British troops combined which had been trained and equipped entirely to fight in the broad open spaces of the Middle East. It was equipped with tracked vehicles, half-tracked vehicles and wheeled vehicles, and the men had just been issued with thick battledress as it is generally cold in Baghdad for which place we were bound. They were only partially trained and were going to finish their training when we reached the other end. I saw the 45th Brigade off at Bombay. They were diverted at sea and flung into the jungle, of which they had never heard, on the West Coast. The brigadier was killed, the brigade was cut to pieces, and the survivors went into captivity.
Those are the sorts of things at which we would look with horror at this moment with regard to the troops we are sending into action in Korea. But the present situation is quite different. We can gradually nurture our troops into action with training and proper equipment, which we were unable to do in those days. The 44th Brigade which followed went straight into the bag on Singapore Island. The remainder of the division in Burma had no transport, no pack rations, no wireless, and practically no air support, which meant that every time a detachment was sent into the jungle, it was very probable that it would be surrounded and cut off.
It was largely a matter of luck as to who were captured and who were not. One example of this was the case of our famous General Alexander who went to take over command of the Burma Army just before the fall of Rangoon. I think he was given a far too optimistic report of the conditions. On getting to Rangoon he found the whole place surrounded. He tried in vain to get out, and it was only because of the stupidity of the Japanese, who had been told to take Rangoon from the west—they had already taken it from the north—through their stupidity in obeying the letter of that

order, that General Alexander escaped with the remains of his little force. But for that, a commander who made one of the greatest reputations of the war and who has now made a great reputation as Governer-General of Canada, would no doubt be now watering a little cabbage patch in England like some other generals who were not so fortunate.
I want now to deal with one or two of the objections to this claim. I will take the easiest one first—the financial one. Not being a financier myself, I have the greatest admiration for what the economists can do with figures. If the way of a man with a maid is supposed to be mysterious, still more mysterious is the way of a financier with figures. They can make them do anything. As a young subaltern before World War I, I had it explained to me that the Germans, owing to their economic situation, would be unable to go to war, and, sitting in a wet trench in Flanders a few months later, I tried to figure out where they had gone wrong. I had the same thing explained to me still more strongly by some most accomplished financiers before the Hitler war. They said that even if Hitler started a war, he could not carry it on for more than a year. Tramping back to Dunkirk and Rangoon I had to puzzle that one out.
I am quite certain that if the financiers really approached this matter from the point of view that it could be done, they would find some way of paying this money to the British Far Eastern prisoners of war. If there are no assets from which it can be paid, what about letting the Japanese work an hour longer each day for the next year, as they made our prisoners work when they had them in their hands? Japanese industry is going to compete very severely with some of the industries in this country pretty soon, so do not let us be too soft with them. The important thing about this claim is its moral principle. The Far Eastern prisoners of war do not mind so much about the money side as they do that the principle should be established that no nation shall treat the nationals of another when they have them in captivity as the Japanese treated our men.
Some people say that the prisoners of the Germans and the Italians suffered in just the same way. I know that in certain cases appalling brutality was inflicted on


British prisoners in German and Italian hands, but there is no comparison between that and the case against the Japanese. We have only to compare the figure of the 4 per cent. who died in German hands with that of the 27 per cent. who died in Japanese hands to see that in the latter case it was a matter of deliberate brutality.
I do not want to go into these brutalities, but when part of my divisional headquarters was captured in the battle of the Sittang River my A.D.M.S.—head doctor—was also captured. He spent three years in Rangoon gaol, which even for a hardened Asiatic criminal before the war was an ordeal which he probably did not survive. The Japanese would not allow him any surgical instruments or drugs. In the case of one airman who crashed near the gaol, it was necessary to amputate both his arms, and also to perform a small operation on his head. This my A.D.M.S. did, but the Japanese refused to allow him to change that man's bandages even when the doctor pointed out that his head was being eaten away by maggots. Having no arms, the man could do nothing about it himself, and over a period of weeks he was just allowed to die. As far as I know, that did not generally happen in the German camps.
There are some people, again, who suggest that if this claim for the Far Eastern prisoners of the Japanese were met, it would cause jealousy among other ex-Service men. That is not my experience at all. Ex-Service men are an extraordinarily generous crowd of people, and their attitude is, "Well, chaps, if you can get anything out of the Japanese, get it, and good luck to you."
The final point I want to mention is more important, because it is an attitude taken up at the moment by some of our senior commanders, and I know that it has had a certain effect on some of the Government Front Bench. They suggest that it would be bad for morale to do anything like this for an ex-prisoner of war, and that would encourage men to surrender. I think that is rather a disgraceful suggestion to make where the British soldier is concerned, but I have heard it quoted quite seriously. I should like to read this small extract from the Air Commander-in-Chief's report which

has just been published regarding casualty evacuation by air from Burma.
This service was easily one of the best morale builders among allied front line troops. It inspired the fighting man's confidence and allayed any fears he may have had about being surrounded with the possibility of falling into the hands of the Japanese as a prisoner.
He regarded that as the worst fate.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will forgive me, I understood him to make a statement—I hope I have it right—that commanding officers or important officers on the staff at the moment were suggesting to Ministers that if we made this concession, it would be bad for morale because it would encourage men to surrender. I have certainly never heard that suggestion from any officers on my staff or from my advisers nor heard of any Minister who gave the idea countenance. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will explain what he had in mind.

Brigadier Smyth: I am very glad it has not got so far as the Secretary of State for War. I am delighted to hear it. Some people far more senior than commanding officers—after all they are small fry compared with the right hon. Gentleman—hold that idea. I know that, because I was brought up with many of them. I know that the Japanese fight to the last round and last man. They are the only nation in the world who do that, but all the same they are not nearly as good soldiers as the British. The British when well led and properly equipped and trained are better soldiers than the Japanese at any time. However, the point of view to which I have referred is one held by some people and I am very glad to hear it has not reached the right hon. Gentleman.
I know that between the wars, there was a Japanese tennis player who because he was beaten at Wimbledon dropped off the boat on the way home rather than face the disgrace of having been beaten. That is not the sort of attitude we should adopt; and what a lot of British lawn tennis players would be drowned this summer if we did adopt it.
My own son was a prisoner of the Japanese for a very short time. He was in a field dressing station which was captured by Japanese who immediately bayoneted all the wounded in their beds.


My son and one or two others managed to escape. When, a few months later, he was killed in action leading his company of the Queen's Royal Regiment in the battle of Kohima ridge, I am sure he would have said, if he could, "It was better so, better than a lingering death in the hands of the Japanese."
It is a matter of principle which the prisoners of war want to establish far more than a matter of money. I think it is very opportune that we should be laying this claim and discussing it in the House with the war going on in Korea and our gallant battalions, like the Gloucesters, being overrun and a considerable number of prisoners falling into the hands of an Oriental enemy. As far as my information goes, and I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, the International Red Cross have been allowed no facilities in Korea. If we do not watch it, we shall have the Minister getting up in this House and making much the same sort of unpleasant statement that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington had to make seven years ago.
Therefore, it is important that we should establish this principle very firmly now, at this moment. I believe that by giving whole-hearted assent to this Motion we shall not merely put in a clause on behalf of Far Eastern prisoners into the peace treaty—although I hope we shall do that—but we shall be showing the whole world that we are absolutely determined to outlaw war and those who wage aggressive war. We shall show that if war does come upon us despite our efforts, there are certain codes of humanity and human decency, particularly with regard to women and children and helpless captives of war, which we, the British people, insist shall be observed.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to second the Motion.
The hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Brigadier Smyth) has spoken in moving and eloquent terms. Even those hon. Members who may disagree with the point of view advanced must acknowledge the deep sincerity with which he put it forward. He has spoken from the background of a distinguished military record. I have no military record, but I must confess that as I

listened to him I was more and more moved as he went along.
I join with the hon. and gallant Member in thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) for so readily stepping forward and giving us an opportunity of having this debate. This is an all-party issue. It transcends any difference we may have on the customary items of our political faith.
I should like to make it clear at once that we do not regard this Motion as a sort of culmination to a hardship campaign. It is not. If I may quote General Percival, who was in charge of the troops in the Far East:
This has not been the campaign of discontented people.
In the long and proud history of these Islands, there have been certain principles for which our people have earned renown, and not the least of these have been the unfailing regard of our fathers for a sense of justice. Fortified by the knowledge of our history, I feel that the House will expect me to devote the time I have firstly to proving the justice of our case and secondly to proving the practicability of the proposals we put before the Government.
What are the arguments heard against these proposals? First of all, there is the one to which the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood has referred, among others—the attitude of other prisoners of war. Secondly, there is the argument that the Ministry of Pensions can deal with any cases of need among these men. Thirdly, there is the argument that reparations might ruin the economy of Japan and that international Socialists, such as we like to call ourselves, can hardly ask for reparations of this sort. There is the further argument that we ourselves, by the use of the atom bomb on Japan, were guilty of an atrocity for which a counter-claim might be made.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: A very big one.

Mr. Thomas: Further, it is said that this is mere sentimentality, that one cannot reward a man who has been a prisoner of war and that, as a soldier, he must expect to face the normal hazards and risks of the battlefield. Each of these arguments has been put forward to me in due seriousness by hon. Members, and I believe they are deserving of reply.
I should like to submit at once that this appeal is not for a reward but for just compensation for treatment unparalleled in the history of great nations. It is not a part of the ordinary hazards of war, for these had already been endured before captivity. The Japanese Government, as a matter of calculated policy to undermine morale, pursued a policy of complete and callous disregard of international conventions relating to the treatment of prisoners of war. Their instructions to commanders of the prison camps not to be obsessed with ideas of mistaken humanitarianism makes it quite clear that this was not the cruelty of isolated commanders but the calculated policy of a government.
I recently read in a newspaper circulating in this country an article by one of these lads who was fortunate enough to come home. He said:
The building of the Burma-Siam railway"—
and he was one of those who took part in it—
by slave gangs of prisoners is unique in the records of the civilised world. Fine upstanding young men were reduced to desperate-eyed skeletons upon whom the Japs showed no mercy. Sickness, though obviously leading to death, was regarded as indiscipline and sabotage.
Like the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood, I do not propose to burden the House by reminding them in too great detail of the terrible conditions which our men endured, but it is just as well that we should remember; it is just as well that we should have a sense of perspective, in view of world conditions today. I understand that in the Far East questions of face and prestige are of great importance, and, apart from the point of view of the men themselves, it would be damaging to Great Britain if the Far East felt that they could do this sort of thing to our men and get away with it. They were conscious as a people, as was said by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), that they were violating not only the principles of international law but the canons of decency and civilised conduct.
What of the other prisoners of war? I know that hon. Members are able to quote the tragedy of the 50 Royal Air Force officers who were shot after they tried to escape from a prison camp in

Germany. We acknowledge that there were isolated examples of similar atrocities in various theatres of the last world war, but there is nothing anywhere that compares with the unique outrage upon human standards of conduct over a long period of time, which occurred in the Japanese theatre of war. Even in war, when hate and cruelty run riot, certain standards of decency and humanity must be observed. I, naturally, would support the claim of any ex-prisoner of war who can maintain a case that he suffered by a complete disregard of international conventions. But to fail now to take cognisance of the sadistic breaches in the standards by the Japanese, is to invite such conditions to be repeated if ever the tragedy of international carnage were to be repeated.
What about the suggestion that the Ministry of Pensions can deal with the matter? The hon. and gallant Gentleman has dealt forthrightly with this question. I would readily pay tribute to the wholesome and humane manner in which the Ministry of Pensions have functioned since the war. Hon. and gallant Members on both sides of the House have, from time to time, paid tribute to the Ministry of Pensions for the way in which they have set about their task. But this is a different issue. This is an attempt to recognise that special circumstances warrant special treatment, and that there is a clear case for compensation for those who endured more than any other British Tommies in captivity have ever been called upon to endure in our history.
I now come to the question of the high moral argument that we used the atom bomb, and I am prepared to face up to that argument. Heavy mass bombing and the use of the atom bomb, like all war, is revolting. War is not a Christian business; it is not a love-and-brotherly affair. I certainly have never sought to justify the use of the atom bomb. But that neither adds to nor detracts from the fact that all civilised nations in the world have accepted standards of conduct towards prisoners of war, and that there is no nation in the world which has inflicted what amounts to torture upon helpless, hapless captives in the way that Japan has.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Before my hon. Friend leaves this point, may I ask this question about the use of the atom bomb? I appreciate the argument of my hon.


Friend, and I think I agree with most of it. But supposing we put in a claim to the Japanese Government for reparations for the treatment of our prisoners of war, would my hon. Friend agree that our Government or the American Government should be called upon to agree to a claim for damages by all the victims who suffered as a result of the atom bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend will be aware that unhappily in war there is destruction common to both sides, and the Pearl Harbour incident preceded the events which we are discussing. I do not try to justify the use of the atom bomb. If we try to argue that out, it will be like trying to ascertain which came first, the hen or the egg. There is no adequate answer. There is a principle that no nation shall violate flagrantly the accepted customs and usages of war. I should like to quote again from General Percival. He said:
We believe that if we fail to bring home to the Japanese Government its responsibility for the barbarous treatment of British prisoners of war and civilian internees, we shall lose a great deal of prestige abroad and in the eyes of foreigners who will think that Britain no longer bothers about the welfare of her nationals.
I believe that the justice of this case has been maintained. Is it practicable? The fact that certain action has taken place in America and Australia has, of course, added to the strength of the campaign. No one would deny it. Some hon. Members have reminded me that the agitation reached the Commons after action had been taken by the American and Australian Governments. That is not an important point of principle.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: What the hon. Member is quoting other hon. Members as having said is not true. I brought this question to the House of Commons before the American law had even been printed.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. But the impression has been created among hon. Members that this Motion is a kind of attempt to get on the tail of a policy which has been successfully implemented in America and Australia. That, I believe, is something which need not disturb the House in trying to assess the real value of this claim.
Hon. Members may ask, "Why is this Member taking such an interest in the question?" I have left it until my closing words to tell the House that one of the earliest duties I can recollect performing after my election in 1945 was, together with the Lord Mayor of my city, to welcome home a large number of Welsh boys who had spent their years in captivity. God knows—and I say this with due reverence—I shall never forget what I saw. I have met others from other theatres of war, but here there was a very noticeable difference which I think the House should bear in mind.
It is true that we cannot undo for these people the sufferings of yesterday. We cannot undo the barbarism and the cruelty which the Japanese showed to them in the prison camps. But I think we can remember that oft, when on their couch they lie, "in vacant or in pensive mood," they recall the nightmares of yesterday, which trouble many of them, let us acknowledge it, even today. By passing this Motion we can give them a feeling that they are not forgotten and that we have a sense of our obligation towards them.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: The House has listened to two very moving speeches. I do not think we could have had the case for this Motion put better, more clearly and with more feeling than was done by both my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwood (Brigadier Smyth) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). It is all the more difficult, therefore, for me to try to put before the House a slightly different point of view.
I would say at once that I wholeheartedly accept the principle which my hon. and gallant Friend said was behind this Motion—that everything should be done to see that in future no Power treats prisoners-of-war in the way in which our prisoners-of-war were treated by the Japanese. I am wholeheartedly behind that principle and, as I will show in my speech, I hope His Majesty's Government will do all they can to see that steps are taken in the peace treaty to show to the Japanese people as a whole that they are responsible for the foul treatment meted out by their soldiers and officers to our prisoners.
But it is because I think there are certain other important principles raised by the Motion that I want to warn the House against accepting its full implications, as it is drafted. I accept the principle on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman addressed the House. He said that the main object behind the Far Eastern Prisoners-of-War Association, which urged this Motion, is to see that never again will an enemy Power treat our prisoners as they were treated by the Japanese. It is wise that we should think of that objective at this time, when we hear such awful stories about our men and others who have been captured in Korea.
Before I turn to state the reasons why I object to certain implications in the Motion, I should like to make two points. The first is that I am as aware as anybody can be to the bestial and brutal treatment which was meted out to our prisoners. I saw many of the returned prisoners shortly after they had landed here. Further, as I think my hon. and gallant Friend knows, and certainly as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. R. Robinson) knows, the Blackpool Field Regiment was captured complete. I happen to hold an honorary title in the successor to that Regiment today. Thus, I cannot be charged with having no sympathy or only grudging sympathy with these men for the treatment meted out to them, and I hope nobody will think that such a lack of sympathy is at the back of my mind. I have seen the ghastly pictures and have heard the ghastly stories. I am as keen as anyone that just and fair compensation shall be given to these men and to the dependants of those who died. I do not object to that; indeed, I seek it as much as anyone.
This Motion, however, raises the question of the method by which compensation shall be obtained. It raises two separate points. There is the general matter of principle to which I have already referred and which I think justifies a large reparation claim by His Majesty's Government. Certainly I hope the Japanese people at least will be compelled to acknowledge their guilt as a nation in this matter. The point that the Japanese nation were responsible, as well as their officers, was

well put by both hon. Members who have spoken, and many of the officers have already been punished under war crimes charges.
But the nation, too, has a responsibility, and I hope the Minister of State will accept that point. International law is so often flouted that every opportunity should be taken of bringing home to nations the fact that it cannot be flouted with impunity. I hope, therefore, that there will be a claim for reparations. Whether or not those reparations can or will be paid is another matter, but at any rate there is no doubt that a claim for reparations should be submitted.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughes rose——

Mr. Low: I would rather not be interrupted. This is a difficult speech. The hon. Member will no doubt catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The second and separate question which is raised by the Motion is that to which I shall confine my speech. Shall the money so recovered from the Japanese be paid direct and equally to all who were in captivity and to the dependants of men who died there? My answer to that question is different from that given by the two hon. Members who have spoken today. I say that is not the right way to compensate those who have suffered.
I shall risk wearying the House for a moment, if I may, with a statement of principles with which I think the House will be familiar but which it is important that we should have in mind. I shall quote two statements by Ministers of His Majesty's Government—and the first of those was by the Minister of Defence on 4th April, 1950. He said:
His Majesty's Government has done everything in its power towards the restoration of health and the resettlement of members of the Forces who were made prisoners-of-war by the Japanese. It is not, however, its policy to give financial benefits to such members other than those given to other ex-Service personnel."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1950; Vol. 473, c. 134.]
That is the first statement of principle I want to put before the House.

Air Commodore Harvey: But it will not be the British Government giving compensation here; it will be the Japanese people.

Mr. Low: That is exactly the point, but I want to get this statement of principle before the House. I think my hon.


and gallant Friend might well accept it, for I want to build up the case principle by principle. The second statement I wish to quote is one made by the former Financial Secretary to the War Office, who I am glad to see is in his place. On 13th June, 1950, he said:
I would ask the House to consider this statement of general principle which, I believe, is sound; that a soldier, whatever his rank, should be paid for his services, and that it is recognised that, in the course of that service, he may run greater or less risk or hardship, and that at the end of his service all possible action should be taken to rehabilitate him in respect of any injury, physical or mental, which he may have suffered and to restore him so that he may take his place in civilian life; and if he has suffered any lasting injury, that appropriate provision by pension, or other proper means, should be made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 178–9.]
I think the House will accept that. I am only dealing with the matters for which His Majesty's Government are responsible.
The next principle I would explain is this. It is generally accepted—and perhaps this sums up those two statements—that it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to take all possible action to compensate all its former soldiers who have suffered, whether physically or mentally, in the course of war service and also to compensate the dependants of those who have died; and that the compensation is paid for the injuries suffered, for the damage done to their health, and not for the treatment which was meted out. In other words, no attempt is made to distinguish the way in which men are wounded or killed or ill-treated; but the measure of the compensation paid out is based upon an estimate of the damage to their health.
Next, it must be agreed that it would be wrong for such compensation to be made greater or less because of the chance of one enemy paying reparations and another enemy paying no reparations. It is the duty of His Majesty's Government to be, as it were, the insurer so that all who serve their King and country in action are properly compensated for injuries done to them, whatever may be the financial position of His Majesty's enemies at the end of the war; and the amount of compensation paid to them should have nothing to do with the chance—for it is a chance—of whether the enemy is able to pay reparations or not. I believe that to be a matter of principle upon which

neither hon. Member has spoken has touched.
If the House accepts that principle, it must also accept one of two points which I shall now make—either that ex-prisoners of war in the Far East have not yet received proper compensation through the Ministry of Pensions, or that they have already received proper and fair compensation by comparison with others and that they are now to be given a little extra. If the principle which I have just stated is accepted, then one of those two propositions must follow.
I should like to add that I think the House would accept that the degree of injury to health—and this follows on something I have already said—both physical and mental, and not the theatre of war or the place of captivity, must fix the amount of compensation to be paid. Next, such compensation, when paid—as a matter of practice it is paid through the Ministry of Pensions—should have regard to each individual case separately; it should have regard to the injuries suffered by each individual person. One cannot generalise over damage done to health in war. The great value of the Ministry of Pensions is that through its excellent machinery it is able to take each individual case separately, and compensate each individual for the damage that he has suffered.
I believe that these principles are correct; and if the House follows them it will see the objection that I have to the underlying principles of this Motion. I am sure that the House will realise that I am not trying to deprive anyone of any benefit to which he is entitled. I am trying to concentrate upon principles. Perhaps I may interpose here a word to say how difficult it is in a matter—not a sentimental matter—but a matter which so much affects our emotions—as this does those of all of us—to put forward with success a case based upon logic; because my case really, I am afraid, is based upon the cold, hard logic of cold, hard principles.
So to sum up my objections to the full implications of this Motion as at present drafted. It seems to me to ask expressly or impliedly for an equal payment to all ex-Far Eastern prisoners of war—and for the dependants of those who died—without regard to their


present state of health at this moment—to the damage they have suffered in health, mental and physical.

Brigadier Smyth: Will my hon. Friend allow me? I do think I should make it absolutely clear what the Far Eastern prisoners of war claim is, because what my hon. Friend has been saying has really nothing to do with the claim we have raised, and I should not like the House to think that it had got anything to do with it at all. We are not making any claims for these pensions for health. We think that has been adequately dealt with by the Government. As I said before, it is a claim on the Japanese for atrocities rendered, and we do not want to go into any of these cases for pensions, for which the British Government and the British taxpayers would have to be responsible.

Mr. Low: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend has quite followed the purpose of my argument. I wish one of my hon. and gallant Friends here would be good enough to keep quiet. He keeps on interjecting. This speech is a difficult enough one to make in any circumstances, and these interjections make it more difficult still. This is a matter which affects me as deeply as it affects him, and I would ask him not to interrupt in this way.
In answer to what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwood has said, I fully realise that, of course, the claim is against the Japanese. However, it is a claim for compensation to be paid to particular people on grounds of justice, and I maintain that it is His Majesty's Government's job, as the insurers, as it were, to see all are properly compensated who have suffered in war; and if we carry that principle out to its bitter logical end—which is, I admit, a horrible argument to use in this particular case—then the Government, as insurers, have the right to step into our shoes and claim from the Japanese who have caused the damage. But the point surely is that His Majesty's Government are responsible for providing this compensation, and it is to them and to the Ministry of Pensions that we should look.
I was talking about equal payment with regard to the distress and the damage suffered. I believe that to be the objection which the Australian Government

are very likely to deal with. I think it has been wrongly said that the Australian Government have reached a decision about this matter. They have had a commission and they have had recommendations, but they have not reached a decision about what they should do. It has also been wrongly implied, I think, that the American Government have paid all this money only to prisoners of war in Japanese hands. That is not true. Their law covers all prisoners of war. This Motion, therefore, differs from the American measures in that way.
It is happily true that many of these prisoners who suffered damage have recovered, just as many others who were ill or wounded in the war have recovered largely their full health. But it is unhappily true that far more have not recovered, and I am as anxious as anybody else to see that these men are properly looked after through the Ministry of Pensions.
My second objection is that this Motion selects for special treatment prisoners of war in Japanese hands without regard—though I know the point has been covered—for those who suffered in Germany, and particularly the dependants of those who were killed—who were murdered: brutally murdered—by the Germans. I think that that is a blemish in the Motion which is acknowledged impliedly by the mover and seconder when they say that they have no objection to those claims being put forward and that they would support them.
My third objection is that it selects for special money benefits those who had the misfortune to be captured and the dependents of those who died in captivity, while nothing special is done for those who lost limbs or lost senses—sight, for instance—fighting the Japanese, and those killed in action. I do not think that we should be wise in this way to adopt a Motion which draws a distinction between the sufferings of men who were wounded, or the dependents of those who died in action, and the dependents of those who died in captivity.
I keep on referring, as I am going to again, to the Ministry of Pensions because I believe that that is the Ministry through which full compensation should be paid. I believe it is true to say that in 1945, whatever steps were taken by the Ministry of Pensions, it could not know, because


of the medical knowledge at that time, the full damage done to so many of these people; and I would suggest to the Government, on this pension side of the problem raised today, that the Minister of Pensions calls for a review of the cases of all prisoners of war in any theatres who have applied at any time for pensions. I would suggest that a special review is given, and that the help of the British Legion and of the Far Eastern Prisoners of War Association is obtained in order to encourage those men to put forward their cases. I believe that that is the right way to look after the interests of these men, and of their families, who have suffered damage.
I think that we should be making a mistake now to introduce a new principle into our treatment in this country of people who serve our King and country in war. I think we must guard carefully the principles upon which we base treatment of these men. I do plead with the Government that they take this opportunity of making a special review of all cases submitted to them of men who have suffered, particularly of men who have suffered damage to their mental health because of those three and a half long years in captivity.
I finish as I began, by saying that I accept the matter of principle that the Foreign Office should take all possible steps to see that never again does any other nation treat prisoners of war in the way in which these prisoners were treated.

Colonel Hutchison: Before my hon. Friend sits down, I wonder if I may put this question to him? He built up the whole of his case on the mental and physical suffering of those who had been prisoners of war. He took no calculation—and I wonder if he has dismissed it in his thoughts—of the fact that these prisoners of war were entitled to certain standards of rations which were denied to them, and that, therefore, they had not those rations and that they did not get ration money.

Mr. Low: I have taken that into account. I did not want to weary the House with all the points. My hon. and gallant Friend should know—and he will find the fact recorded in the columns of HANSARD—that no deductions were taken from the pay of those prisoners—the

ordinary deductions from prisoners' pay to cover payments for extra things. The deductions were not taken because they had not the proper rations. I did not mention that point because it seemed to me to be covered.

Major Legge-Bourke: Before my hon. Friend sits down——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): There are many hon. Members who want to speak, and I think we had better get on. Mr. Benn.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I hope the House will not mind if I follow the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), and tell him quite frankly, to begin with, that I am substantially in agreement with the points he has raised. Certainly, nobody who feels as the hon. Gentleman feels, and as I feel myself, could be accused of being unsympathetic in this particular matter. The number of people held in captivity in the Far East was so great that there can be few Members of this House who have not very close friends or even relatives who were themselves captives in Japanese prisoner of war camps. But I do feel myself a little unhappy about the wording and the implications of this Motion, and I should like to detain the House for a few minutes, while I put those fears forward for consideration by the House.
First of all, I find on looking at this Motion that it is a little difficult to understand. The hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Brigadier Smyth), and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), who moved and seconded the Motion so effectively and so movingly, put a case I find a little difficult to understand—a case that is based on prestige and "face." I must tell the House quite frankly that if I were confronted with a Japanese at this present moment and were asked to tell him that I believed that he was wrong in the treatment of those British prisoners in his hands, I could not but accept a similar criticism from him on the question of the atom bomb. I should be quite unable to avoid it.
I am afraid I must say on the question of principle here involved—this question of moral principle—that I believe it to be humbug, when so many people, women, children, old folk, were


killed by the atom bombs at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. For every individual photograph that could be produced of a wounded and battered British prisoner of war in Japanese hands, I think one could find an equally horrible photograph of a victim of the atomic bomb. [Interruption.] An hon. Friend of mine says that the two things are not comparable. I do not myself believe that it is possible to draw any distinctions in war between the brutalities on both sides.
This is the real issue which we have to face. No war is pleasant. What the Japanese did to our prisoners of war in the last war could be found in the annals of the British treatment of their prisoners in the far distant past. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] War from the beginning has been horrible. I am very sorry to disagree with so many hon. Gentlemen here, but I very strongly doubt whether in the last 400 years there have not been cruelties inflicted on prisoners held by the British similar to the ones inflicted on our men by the Japanese. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I think the massacres that took place in the Zulu wars were sufficiently horrible to be comparable in this respect.
Certainly the atomic bomb was as horrible as anything, not only at the time when it was dropped, but also in its after-effects on people who have been suffering from radio-activity in the last five years—as horrible I believe, as the after-effects on the people who suffered as prisoners of war. I feel I have to say this because I believe that it would be wrong for this House to consider and debate this matter and for no hon. Member to get up and say these things. I am sorry that it falls to me to do so, so early, but I do think that it is important.

Mr. William Ross: I think one would agree with my hon. Friend, but he is comparing a moral principle with something else which has been accepted as and become part of the international code of conduct. The conduct here complained of is contrary to international convention accepted by the Japanese and everyone else.

Mr. Benn: The point raised by my hon. Friend is a difficult one to answer. All I can say is that when we talk about the customs and traditions of war, I feel

that there is something unsatisfactory about that distinction. If we are prepared to drop the atom bomb, as we have done, on women and children who had nothing to do with the war, how can we possibly say that the treatment of prisoners is in a separate category?
Moreover, the civilians who were captured by the Japanese do not come under the terms of this Motion. No mention has been made of the British women and children who were captured by the Japanese in Hong Kong. They are not covered by this Measure, because they are not Service people. I believe that if compensation is to be made available, it should be made available on a different basis.

Brigadier Smyth: I do not think that one could include civilians in a claim like this. Hundreds of civilians have written to me. They all had property of varying value in these particular countries, and their cases must have individual consideration. It is impossible to consider their claims as a whole. I have been into that question very carefully.

Mr. Benn: I hope that I shall not be as unpopular with the House when I come to the second part of my speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I would like to say, on the question of civilians who were captured that I do not believe that those, for example, who were taken by the Japanese in Hong Kong need special treatment, one by one, any more than the Army prisoners who were captured by the Japanese in the course of military operations. I believe that every case should be taken on its own merits, and that any general treatment is unsatisfactory for reasons put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken, with which I am in substantial agreement.
May I conclude this point by telling the House about one very intimate friend of mine who was captured by the Japanese at Singapore? His ship was sunk by Japanese aircraft in Singapore Harbour, and he was sent to Changi Gaol and then served for a considerable time on the railway of death, the Siam Railway. During his months there he counted the hours of the day by the burial parties that went out from the camp. The effect on him, when he came home at the age of 26, was to make him, at that late age, take a medical training so that he could go back as a missionary to the Far


East. The spirit of that man is more in accordance with the moral principles that I value, than the moral principles that are behind this Motion now before the House.
I find it very difficult at a time when Japanese troops are being re-armed again, when many war criminals who perpetrated these very crimes are being released, to regard this debate as being in touch with the realities of the situation. I think that it is also out of touch with the moral principle in which I myself believe.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I think that the whole House is rather anxious about the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised. He said earlier that in his view the British Army had been guilty during the last 400 years of similar treatment of prisoners of war. I am an amateur in regard to military history, although I know something about it, and I gather that the hon. Gentleman has made that statement without one concrete example to give to the House.

Mr. Snow: I agree with very little that my hon. Friend has said, but I think that each of us in this House, on occasions, has given out some theory like that and has not been able on the spot to produce the evidence. I could myself provide the evidence of what my hon. Friend has said, in connection with the Jallianwallah Bagh at Amritsar.

Mr. Benn: I have been questioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and I should not like to leave this matter without giving some answer. I cannot myself produce chapter and verse now for what has happened during the last 400 years, and therefore I withdraw that statement unreservedly and leave it to each Member here to ask himself if he does not believe that there have been British atrocities similar to the ones perpetrated by the Japanese. It is inconceivable that in the history of the Colonial wars which this country has waged during the last 400 years there should not have been atrocities of that kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am prepared to leave that point, because I believe that some will accept the things which I have said as having some validity; but for the purposes of record, I withdraw my statement absolutely because I cannot give an example.
My second point deals with the machinery of this particular claim. The reality of the thing is whether we should raise this point in the Japanese Peace Treaty negotiations. The United States have built up Japan since the war. Under the guidance of General MacArthur and with the help of the American occupying forces, Japan has been put on its feet. The history of reparations in respect of Germany after the first war and Germany after the last war shows that when we are engaged in reparations claim we are engaging in a claim against the Power mainly responsible for having put that country back on its feet.
I think that we shall find severe difficulties if we submit this claim in the course of the Japanese Peace Treaty negotiations. I do not think that it would be paid in full. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member would be prepared to distribute whatever proportion of that claim was paid by the Japanese. Suppose that a claim of £15 million or £25 million were put in by the British Government in the course of the Japanese Peace Treaty negotiations and only 10 per cent. of all the claims put in were accepted, would the mover of the Motion be prepared to accept a scaling down of the full claim to 10 per cent.? If not, it would fall on the taxpayer.
I believe that if there is substance in the claim put up on behalf of these people, it should fall on the British taxpayer. The argument that there is a crying need for this for the men but that we should not worry because it will not fall on the British taxpayer, is fundamentally unsound. If there is a crying need, if there was injustice, then there should be compensation and the compensation should fall on the British taxpayer, for he is the man who benefited by the courage and gallantry of our men during the war.

Brigadier Smyth: The Far Eastern ex-prisoners of war do not intend to accept any money from the British taxpayer. This is a claim on the Japanese for atrocities perpetrated upon these men in contravention of all the laws of war. Another point is that, if the Government put into the peace treaty a claim for compensation, whatever was received would have to be distributed as the Government


thought fit. It would not be for me as a private individual to undertake that task; it must obviously be for the Government to do so.

Mr. Benn: I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that intervention, for it has at any rate solved one aspect of the problem. I understand that in the United States the payment has already been made. America had Japanese assets from which the payment has been made, but we have none. If the Americans submit a claim in the peace treaty negotiations and Japan can pay only 10 per cent. of it, the net result to the American Exchequer would be that 90 per cent. would be paid by the American taxpayer. We have no Japanese assets available, and if we pay the money now and receive only 10 per cent. of our claim from Japan, the remaining 90 per cent. will fall on the British taxpayer. If we pay out nothing now and only 10 per cent. is received from Japan, the Far East ex-prisoners of war will get only 10 per cent. of their claim.
I must be honest with the House. I find something distasteful about the Motion, in that we are all urged to support it because it will not cost us anything. Surely we should be prepared to accept responsibility for meeting the claim if it is a just claim, and if it is just it should be paid not only to the men of the British Army and their dependants but also to the civilians who suffered—including civilians and Service men who suffered from this sort of thing in other theatres—irrespective of whether we can make a claim against the ex-enemy country concerned.
If I leave any thoughts in the minds of hon. Members out of this confused and much lengthier speech than I had intended, I should hope to leave, first, the thought that whatever we do we must not humbug ourselves about this. The atom bomb, I maintain, was an atrocity as great as any in the history of mankind, and if a moral principle is involved it must be one of forgiveness. We must not make the claim out of a sense of retribution, but if we do make a claim, it must be from other motives. There is no room for retribution, particularly in the current political situation in the Far East Reasons

of prestige we cannot allow to enter our calculations.
The second thought I should wish to leave with hon. Members is that the machinery proposed in the Motion is unsatisfactory in that it, somehow, appears to allow us all to do something generous without any cost to ourselves. I hope that anyone who supports the Motion will feel, as I certainly do, that if there are legitimate claims—I believe there may very well be legitimate claims on grounds of atrocities, injury to health, worry, and so on—as a result of that period of captivity, the British Government should fairly and squarely accept the responsibility and make what allocation is possible. And if any attitude remains in our minds as a result of this debate, it should be the attitude of my friend who, not long from now, will be returning to serve and work in that part of the world which gave him the toughest time he has had in his life.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Turner: I believe that I am the only hon. Member in this House who was actually a prisoner of war in the Far East on the Burma Railway. I had three-and-a-half years—they seemed like centuries—on that task, and we had no N.U.R. to protect us and no powerful Mr. Figgins in the background. I should like to pay my tribute to the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Brigadier Smyth) who so forcefully moved the Motion and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), who seconded it and added a little Welsh oratory to the occasion.
I believe that many of the graves of my former colleagues are now not even traceable in the jungle, though the ones at Kanburi, Chunkai and Nakum Paton are all right. But, graves or no graves, I feel that I should be betraying those with whom I worked under almost unimaginable conditions for so long and who certainly will never be able to speak for themselves, if I did not in this House raise my voice and lift the curtain just a little on the things which I, for one, was lucky to survive.
We base our case as ex-J.P.O.W. on the ground that we should have been supplied with a reasonable amount of drugs and a reasonable amount of food. Up to Christmas, 1943, all those who died, including British, Australians and


the Dutch, many of whom were Eurasians, died really of malnutrition. There were 10,000 of them by Christmas, 1943.
It may technically have been beri-beri for which vitamin B was essential. It may have been tropical ulcers, for which at any rate the humble bandage is essential. I never saw a bandage issued by any Japanese in the course of my captivity. Tents we tore up, mosquito nets we tore up, but we were never issued with a bandage. We had iodoform for tropical ulcers after the railway had been completed. It may have been dysentery and I myself was a victim of amoebic dysentery, but it was not until much later downstream, that we received any emetin at all. It may have been S.T. or B.T. malaria. It is only fair to recall that we were issued from time to time with prophylactic quinine. We had, of course, cholera and blackwater fever sweeping through our ranks, but the point I want to make is that those who died, died in nearly every case of malnutrition.
I shall not weary the House with a whole lot of ghastly cases, which those of us who served will always remember. I should like to give one case if I may because I think it has a bearing on this debate. There was a private—he is still alive—who failed to salute a Nippon sentry and was taken to the guardroom and beaten up. That was a daily and hourly occurrence, so there was nothing in that. Unfortunately he had his ear drum broken, and in the pain of that experience he again forgot to salute. He was hit over the head with the handle of an axe. That man is alive today but he was operated on by two Australian surgeons, who, in order to allow the injured brain to expand, had to keep open the skull with the handle of a mess tin. That man will never be mentally strong. He has a wife and three children at Aylesbury. It is for those people that I and I hope others wish to speak.
I want to say another thing. We felt it was our due as prisoners of war that we should have Red Cross facilities. It has been mentioned in the course of the debate that we did not receive any Red Cross parcels whatever. I know they were sent and that they arrived in Thailand. They were marked "International Red Cross" and the mentality of the Japanese was such that they said that they were to be sent to the fighting Nippon troops

in Burma. These Red Cross parcels contained the very thing we all needed, food, drugs, clothes and comforts. I myself got one-seventh of one parcel in 3½years' captivity, because I stole it.
I feel that the Japanese is a curious mentality which is very difficult for us, who had not been in the Far East previously, to understand. I recall working on the railway one day, when a Nippon corporal, who was in charge of our party, announced that India had been captured by the mighty Nippon forces. We learned afterwards that they were at Kohima near Imphal and that technically they were on Indian soil. We were delighted with this, because it meant a break of a few minutes in our work. In order to keep the conversation going, we asked about Europe and were told that mighty Nippon had long ago conquered Europe. Apparently they had not heard of Hitler, who was the resident landlord at the time.
We did not want to go back to work, so we inquired about North, Central and South America. We were informed that the mighty Nippon Pacific Fleet would shortly sail for the Americas, which would shortly be conquered. In desperation one fellow asked: "What about the Isle of Wight?" In the East, they do not like to lose face. I do not think we much like it in the West. Of the Isle of Wight they had never heard, but the reply we got was something like this: "Wights a very tough race. Soon mighty Nippon Pacific Fleet conquers Isle of Wight."
That shows the mentality and the sense of geography they had. The International Red Cross to them meant "Red Cross for fighting Nippon troops in Burma." They did not remember, and unless they are taught, they never will remember, what the great Japanese nation itself owed to the International Red Cross after that disastrous earthquake, when all Europe turned out to help the Japanese people. Yet they denied help to the remnants of us who were there.
I shall not go into the question of pay, which one hon. Gentleman has mentioned. We got, according to our rank, varied scales of pay, ranging from 10 cents to 20 cents or 30 cents a day. I do not wish to make any kind of claim for compensation in that respect. Officers were forced to sign for fabulous sums of pay and of course, they did not receive


it. It was mythically banked for us in Bangkok. After the war, we found that it was not there at all. The British Government, through the War Office, did compensate us for that, as has been stated.
I want to give one more case, an Australian case. I know of an Australian, who was a friend of one of the servants of this House, and who was, literally, kicked to death because he arrived late at work. As his legs were covered with tropical ulcers and sores it was not surprising that he could not walk or march as fast as the others. That is the sort of case I want, from first-hand experience, to put before the House. We do not seek revenge in any sense of the word at all. We ask for justice from the compatriots of those who treated us badly. We do not ask, and we did not ask, that Nippon "chokos" or "gunzas" should be hanged or shot after the war. We had never asked for that, even though it was done. What we asked for is that those who suffered behind bamboo at the behest of our Japanese masters, should be compensated for by the Japanese race, so that those who survive and still suffer and those dependants of the dead might also benefit.
I hope that this House will have one of its generous impulses, and will respond to our case, and that the Government themselves will give a sympathetic ear to our pleading so that there may be a last and happier chapter to what was a Malayan threnody.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Mulley: As an ex-German prisoner of war I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Turner), because I believe all ex-German prisoners of war will agree with me that although our time was far from easy, we never experienced the atrocities that was the lot of so many of those who were prisoners of Japan. Though I am a member of an ex-prisoners of war association, I wish to make it clear that I do not claim to speak for all ex-German prisoners of war. I speak in an entirely personal capacity.
The question of diet has been raised. In the case of the Japanese ex-prisoners that is one of the points which have been raised in making this claim. I think that German prisoners of war could make a

similar claim on grounds of diet. It must be remembered that the standing ration provided by the Germans was a bowl of greasy water—it was only on the days that the Red Cross Commission visited the camp that we could call it soup—one-fifth of a loaf of bread and a microscopic piece of margarine.
The reason why a large number of German prisoners of war did not die of malnutrition was because we were able to get Red Cross parcels and supplies. I should not like any debate in this House on the question of prisoners of war to pass without paying a sincere tribute on behalf of all those who benefited from the work of the Red Cross Society and the thousands of people of this country in all walks of life who contributed to those parcels. That was the main reason why the German prisoners, by and large, had a much better time. There is also the case that though the differential between the diet to which we were entitled and what we actually got was probably the same as the differential in Japan, Western Germany is a Western country and the standard we should have had was very much higher than the standard which, by international convention, the prisoners of war in Japan should have had.
My third point is that in Germany our lot was extremely difficult in the first year for two reasons. First, because the Germans at that time were quite convinced that they would win the war. That made an enormous difference in the way in which they treated prisoners and also civilians from occupied countries. They thought that there would be no question of having to answer for what they did. Secondly, there were no Red Cross parcels. A third reason was that we had then very few German prisoners in this country. In Japan that important factor never entered into the treatment of prisoners belonging to other nations, because there was no question of the effect it might have had on the treatment of their own prisoners.
I do not think that prisoners of war as a class have any special claim either on the Government or on the community. It would be a very bad thing if ex-prisoners of war were to organise themselves, because they have been prisoners of war, into any kind of political pressure group. Certainly I, and I think most of


the ex-German prisoners of war, would dissociate ourselves from any attempt to that end. Although I have great sympathy with the claims of the Japanese ex-prisoners of war because of the atrocities they suffered, I should not like the House to forget that there are still many ex-German prisoners of war whose physical and mental condition is as bad as those who were in Japan. Their numbers are probably not so great, but that does not affect the fact that there are many who have a claim against Germany.
No matter what atrocities may have been committed against prisoners of war, I do not think that they have any claim against the British taxpayer. The hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Brigadier Smyth) made that point, but I go further and say that they must not have any indirect effect on the British taxpayer. Certainly if they can be compensated from the frozen Japanese assets they have a prior claim to the ex-shareholders in Japanese companies. When a matter of pressing for international justice is concerned, it is no use having reparations of the old-fashioned kind. I say that for two reasons, one economic and one political. I will deal first with the economic reason.
At the moment we are in difficulties because of the shortage of cotton. We claim that the Americans are sending too much cotton to Japan. What would be the point of America sending even more cotton to Japan to enable her to pay us in cotton goods, in which event we shall be having deputations from the Lancashire cotton industry to protest. I do not think that anyone would want to see that consequence. In general, reparations have proved to be an economic disaster.
I turn to the political point. Many ex-prisoners have genuine grounds for hatred of individual Germans, individual Italians or individual Japanese. Speaking personally, and probably on behalf of many people, I do not think that we want to extend that sense of grievance against individuals to an attack on or hatred of the race itself. I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) was, when speaking tonight, drawing his inspiration more generously from the Old Testament than from the New. I do not think that we shall take any steps forward if we look at this matter purely as one of revenge.
My final point concerns the question of distribution. I agree with what has been said by other speakers on this point. I cannot see the justice of a claim for the making of a flat-rate payment per prisoner of war. I cannot see why the dependants of a man who happened to die in Japanese captivity have any greater claim than the parents of a boy who died in German captivity—and there were many—or of someone who was killed in action in the ordinary way. Surely the dependants of Japanese ex-prisoners of war had no greater anxiety in that respect. I do not see that they should have a claim of an equal kind to the other prisoners who return.
Logically, if there is any compensation to be got from Japan, it should rightly go to the Government, because through the Ministry of Pensions and so on the British taxpayer—very willingly—has paid and compensated and looked after all those who suffered, whether they were prisoners of war or were injured in any other way, to try to make life possible for them. I do not think in fact that the Government would be anxious to take such compensation if it were claimed and used it to relieve the taxes. But certainly if some compensation is got it should be put into a fund and administered for those who need the money because of their special circumstances.

Major Legge-Bourke: I think that the hon. Member is now at the most difficult point on which to get agreement on both sides, and I believe this is the cause of the whole of the difficulty between us. It was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low). If we are to expect the Government to get the compensation out of the Japanese, it is very important that we should be quite clear in our minds as to whom we think the money should eventually go. If it is distributed by the Government, it will go to people who have nothing to do with it at all and it will be spread evenly.

Mr. Mulley: I think the hon. and gallant Member has misunderstood my argument. I am suggesting that the Government have it as a right. I am merely saying that if it is held that the Japanese should pay compensation for the injury they did to our people the Government has had responsibility, on behalf of the taxpayer, of meeting that liability. It could be argued that they would have the


right of relieving the taxes by that amount of the compensation. I certainly would not press that view. All I would stress is that I cannot accept the claim that everyone, whether they had a relatively easy or extremely arduous time as a prisoner, has an equal claim on the amount received.
I cannot accept the view that the dependants have any special claim at all as compared with the dependants of anyone else who happened to be killed or taken prisoner in another country. I cannot accept the argument that because a son was in Japan, there is any special monetary reward due to the parent, and many parents I know would not accept any monetary reward because it would be no compensation to them.
I would suggest that if money is got, it should be put in a fund to be administered by a trust. Probably the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood would agree to that. But I do not see that there is any case for a flat rate of payment per head per year. If such claim were to be made against Germany, as I do not feel that I have any permanent consequences of having been a German prisoner, I should not wish to participate. I think that view will be shared by the dependants of Japanese prisoners and by some Japanese prisoners themselves.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. McKibbin: I have no intention of keeping the House very long but I must put in a word for the 860 ex-Japanese prisoners-of-war and their dependants in Ulster who have written to us. Many of them have told me horrible tales which I do not propose to repeat, because hon. Members have heard enough already from the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Turner), who spoke from his own experience. But when the United States were in the strong position of having frozen assets, to keep themselves covered, and they decided to pay their ex-prisoners of war a dollar a day, no one did very much to see that our ex-prisoners got similar treatment.
Eventually these ex-prisoners found leaders among themselves of sufficient influence and spirit to form themselves into an association to fight for their own rights. For this they deserve the greatest credit, and let us hope that the saying, "God helps those that help themselves" will

prove right in this case. Money cannot compensate the people for some of the horrors to which I have listened, but in some cases of which I know it would ease the consequences.

8.58 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): It might be useful if at this stage I said a few words on behalf of the Government. This is a matter which the Government wish to leave entirely to the House. The debate has given proof of great eloquence, depth of feeling and sincerity from supporters of both sides of the question. It has become clear, as the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Brigadier Smyth) said, that this is in no sense a party matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Norwood and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), who moved and seconded the Motion, come from opposite sides of the House and one may fairly say they approached the matter from different backgrounds. The House is bound to be impressed, both with their eloquence and sincerity and also with the sincerity and courage of those who have argued the case against this Motion.
The Government yield to none in their sympathy with those who have suffered and the dependents of those who died under this inhuman treatment; and in their indignation at the total disregard of the conventions of natural and human justice and the inhumanity shown in the treatment of these prisoners of war. I wish to make one comment about the question of the treatment of prisoners of war, and that is that there was created what I think was perhaps a rather exaggerated impression that, apart from the Far Eastern prisoners of war, the cases of ill-treatment were only isolated ones. I think it is a bigger problem than that, but that, as my hon. Friend who was a prisoner in Germany said, no German prisoner of war would claim that his case was on all fours with that of a Far Eastern one.
We should never forget that there was very great suffering, and very many deaths were caused, in the last weeks of the fighting, when so many of these prisoners had to make those forced marches in bitter weather, virtually without food, and entirely without shelter. If we were to broaden our perspective, then not only could the prisoners of all the Allied


Nations be brought in, but the treatment of which we are talking tonight could easily be paralleled in the treatment of Russians and Poles and many other nationalities.
If the British Government have misgivings, as they have, to some extent—misgivings both of principle and of practice—about this Motion, they are in the main due to their awareness firstly, of the great difficulties which there would be in making a claim of this kind effective and in getting actual compensation; secondly, and this comes nearer to being a point of principle, the difficulty of picking out this way of claiming money from many which could have a high priority, if it were possible indeed to obtain a sum of money for the purposes of compensation at all.
I think there was great force in what has been said, I think more than once today, but first by the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood, that, with a claim of this kind, it certainly seems wrong that it should be made to depend almost on the chance whether we can or not get a large sum of money out of a particular ex-enemy country. These are the sort of misgivings which we principally have, but I should like to say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Motion that it never occurred to us to raise as objections to it such instances as the possible jealousy that might be felt by other prisoners, of which I have no evidence at all, and still less the possible effect on the morale of the fighting men.

Colonel Hutchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me? A good deal of his argument is based on the difficulty of getting money. Japan is supposed to have gone all democratic, though some of us may doubt how far and how deep that has gone. If, in fact, they have done so, should they not of their own volition, want to expiate some of these atrocities by making a payment without being too hard pressed to do it?

Mr. Younger: That may well be so. It has been suggested, and I have heard that suggestion made in respect of both Germany and Japan, but I really doubt whether that is a consideration which can seriously influence His Majesty's Government's attitude one way or another towards this Motion.
One point of which much was made and with which I have great sympathy was that the object of this proposal was not to get money, but to establish a principle, and to make it clear to the Japanese, and, indeed, to the whole world, that treatment of this sort cannot with impunity be meted out to our soldiers, or, indeed, to any others. On that I would simply make this comment. I believe that the general question of bringing home their guilt to any of the nations whom we consider to have been guilty of aggression and war and all its consequences, and of deterring them from doing the same thing again, is really the task of the occupation régime, of the eventual peace treaty, and, in some extreme cases, of the war crimes trials, and I doubt whether that particular argument can be applied with any very great force, though I agree it is not entirely irrelevant, to this particular proposition. It is a very much broader question—the question of bringing home to those with whom we were at war the true responsibilities for what was done.
The Motion asks that the Government should give very early consideration to the claims of the British Far Eastern prisoners of war and their dependents for compensation from the Japanese. The first thing I wish to say on that is that the Government have, in fact, for some time been giving very close consideration indeed to that particular problem.

Major Tufton Beamish: I cannot see how the Government have been giving very close consideration to the matter when it has not yet been put to them.

Mr. Younger: The hon. and gallant Gentleman really must not assume that the Government were not aware of this matter. We had, in fact, been studying it for a very long time, and it has, indeed, been under discussion in this House at intervals.

Major Beamish: I happen to be a member of the Council of the British Far Eastern Prisoners of War and happen to know that a detailed case has not yet been put by that body to the Government. How, therefore, can the Government have considered the matter?

Mr. Younger: I do not know anything about a particular body having made a


case, but I do know that this general question regarding Far Eastern prisoners, and how the suggestion could be put into practice, has been under consideration by the Government over a long period.
The House will be aware that much has been done through the Ministry of Pensions towards the rehabilitation and the resettlement of prisoners of war, and, indeed, also of civilians who suffered in the Far East. That is something, I think, upon which we are all agreed. There was a debate some nine or 10 months ago upon that subject, and the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low) referred to it and to the speech made by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for War. He enunciated certain principles and reinforced those principles himself today during what, if I may say so, I thought was an extremely able and interesting speech.
We entirely accept the position which he put forward in broad terms, that His Majesty's Government are in a sense the insurers of their armed men in respect of injuries they may receive. I thought he was right in the emphasis he placed upon the function of the Government and the Ministry of Pensions in dealing with the real cases of hardship not covered in respect of these prisoners of war. He suggested that there should be a special pensions review. I am sure he will appreciate that that is something outside my province, but I can assure him that I will see that his suggestion is brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister.
I should like to give the House some information regarding certain matters to which reference has been made. The main reference was to the action taken by the United States Government and to the decision of the Australian Government. Of course, circumstances in both those countries are very different from those in which we find ourselves. Taking first the United States; at the end of the war that country's War Damage Corporation was in the fortunate position of having a very considerable surplus of some 210 million dollars. The premium for insurance against war damage had far exceeded the claims on the fund. A further sum of 90 million dollars was also provided from the sale of enemy assets in the United States. Payments by the

United States Government to ex-prisoners of war and civilian internees from the Far East and to their dependants were made from this large sum. They were not supplied by the Japanese Government.
In this country, on the other hand, our war damage insurance scheme has had to meet enormous losses as a result of enemy action. As regards Japanese assets in this country, the amount is much smaller than that of Japanese assets in the United States. The value of the Japanese assets in the United Kingdom is estimated at about £1,250,000. The Australian Government have decided to set up a fund of £250,000—to be financed, if necessary, by the Exchequer—for making payments in cases of special hardship. They have also stated that if reparations are obtained from Germany and Japan, from which compensation could be paid in respect of lawless acts committed against Australian Service men during the war, the claims of former prisoners of war will be promptly considered by the Government.
If, therefore, we were to follow either the American or Australian arrangements we would have to find funds from sources already within this country, which is what they have proposed, and as I have explained the only such source would be Japanese assets, the value of which is relatively small. The Government are at present considering whether, after the peace treaty, the net value of the Japanese assets in this country, such as they may obtain might be used for the endowment, or otherwise for the benefit of, organisations and institutions whose work has been and can be of value in helping those in the United Kingdom who have suffered and the dependents in the United Kingdom of those who died as a result of captivity or internment in enemy hands during the war. A further statement on that particular aspect of the subject will be made in due course.
The question has been raised why in these circumstances we should not look to Japan herself to provide compensation. I recognise that the practical question of how much money could be obtained has been minimised in this debate and that the principle is the main thing to which hon. Members have had their attention drawn. But we must consider practicability. The scale of damage and the number of individuals concerned


would be beyond computation if one considers the cases of hardship and suffering in our Far Eastern Dependencies—in Hong Kong, Malaya, Borneo and Western Pacific territories. In addition, similar claims of far greater importance could undoubtedly be submitted by other countries affected by war in the Far East such as Burma, China, and the Philippines.
One has to ask oneself if one attempts to get compensation for those purposes and earmark it, where the Japanese are going to obtain foreign exchange which would meet the just claims—we recognise they are just claims—of those who suffered at their hands. Japan's minimum imports of food and raw materials have been costing the United States Government little short of one million a day ever since September, 1945, and the Japanese economy, though improving steadily, still shows a balance of payments deficit.
Whilst, therefore, the Government are fully in sympathy with the motives of those who support this Motion, I must give the frank warning that there is really very little chance indeed of obtaining compensation from the Japanese. Against the background of the facts I have given it would be quite wrong to encourage those concerned to entertain any false hopes in the matter.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean now, or over a period, or ever?

Mr. Younger: Perhaps I might say that if the proposal is that there should be some kind of levy on Japanese trade in some form or another for many years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Hon. Members who ask "why not," have to consider in particular how that could possibly be enforced. I should have thought that experience of reparations after the first world war to which one of my hon. Friends referred showed that anything like that would be a vain illusion which it would be most unkind to ask ex-prisoners of war to rely upon.
I do not think it would be right to allow any prisoner of war in this country to think that any such method would be a way by which they would eventually get compensation, assuming we could get agreement on it from a considerable number of other countries who have claims and are interested in the right sort of

treaty for Japan. I very much doubt whether this principle of levying this particular sum, assuming it to be appropriate to meet claims in this way, is one on which there would be much chance of obtaining agreement in peace treaty negotiations.
I am afraid this statement which I have made must inevitably be discouraging to hon. Members who support the Motion. There are misgivings, partly in principle but largely from the point of view of practical possibility. As I have already said, the House is taking a free decision on this matter, and the Government are anxious to leave it to the House. For their part, the Government feel that they should accept the proposition that consideration should be given to this matter as it has been given in recent weeks and months, perhaps more especially because we have reason to know that at least one Commonwealth country has said that it proposes to pursue the claim. I think, therefore, that it would perhaps be wrong for us to close the door on any consideration of this matter, but I should not like the House to think from anything I have said that we believe that the principle is likely to be acceptable to all who are engaged in the peace treaty, or, even if it was, that it would be possible to obtain any substantial compensation for these prisoners of war.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I have no doubt that the House will appreciate where the right hon. Gentleman's heart lies. I have no doubt that he sympathises with the terms of this Motion. I must confess that I was not very clear whether the Government accepted the principle behind the Motion. I feel that they might tell us whether they accept the principle that this is a just claim on the Japanese Government and nation for a calculated policy of atrocities carried out on prisoners of war during the late war.
When we know the answer to that, there comes the question of whether or not this claim can be enforced. I must say that I am not completely convinced by the argument that reparations proved a failure after the last war. They were, of course, on an entirely different scale. I think an interesting suggestion was made by the hon. and gallant Member


for Scotstoun (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison). I can see that there are certain objections to putting it to the Japanese Government themselves that if they now wish to come into the comity of nations they should accept their responsibilities for these acts in the past; but I think it is an attractive suggestion. I do not think the House should be entirely discouraged by the practical difficulties the Government have mentioned, although I must admit that I think when the Minister of State rightly points out that many other nations would have similar claims, that is a point we must take into account and with which we should be in sympathy.
I should like to address one or two remarks on the speeches made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), and the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn). The points they made were rightly put, and I thought they were well put. The hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Brigadier Smyth) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), pointed out that no one wanted to make political capital out of this matter, and I would say that no hon. Member who signed this Motion wants to make personal capital out of it. We do not claim that we have any more sympathy for prisoners of war in the Far East or in any other theatre than those who feel bound, for conscientious reasons, to differ from the terms of this Motion.
The hon. Member for Bristol. South-East, mentioned the case of the atom bomb. I would say to him that I think it is emotional to talk about the atomic bomb. To my mind there is no moral difference between dropping 100 high explosive bombs and dropping the atomic bomb.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That makes his case stronger.

Mr. Grimond: That may be. I understand the case of the extreme pacifist who says that anything to do with war is outside the pale of human society. But then of course we must drop all talk of reparations and all talk of war trials. Our Government are committed, as I understand it, to the principle that there are certain rules and practices in war which civilised nations accept. The war

trials which have been carried on are one example of the acceptance of that principle.
The hon. Member mentioned that other nations, Britain in particular, might themselves have committed faults; let us put it that way. I think he mentioned atrocities, but let us call them mistakes. I do not accept that argument. Because one nation in far-off times has been guilty of evil things, is not an argument which permits nations today to conduct the sort of organised campaign of atrocities which the Japanese undertook. We heard that argument used before the war about the concentration camps in Germany. People said, "There is anti-Semitism in this country; there have been pogroms in other countries." But there was nothing like the calculated extermination of a race which took place in Germany before the war.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, North, accepted the main principle behind the Motion. He said he was in favour of the House expressing the view that we hold the Japanese Government and the Japanese people, in so far as any people are responsible in some degree for the action of their Government, responsible for what they did to our prisoners of war. I understand he accepted the view that we had a right to make a claim—a claim partly in compensation and partly to impress upon the world and the Japanese that no one can with impunity behave in that way to this nation or any other civilised nation in time of war and subsequently escape all responsibility.
I understand that he accepts that, and also accepts that this was a special case and that our men in Japan were treated in a way clean outside the ordinary hazards of war and quite beyond what a soldier may expect when he enlists. He then spoke about the Ministry of Pensions. He and the Minister of State spoke of the Government insuring the fighting man against the risk of war. But to my mind, if he accepts that these risks were outside the ordinary risks of war, then he cannot talk of insurance. One can only insure against a reasonably known and expected risk, such as the risk of being killed or being a prisoner; but the Ministry of Pensions and the Government, as I understand it, do not pretend to insure or protect a man


against the continuous organised atrocities which went on in the Japanese prisoner of war camps. That is the difference. It is not a question of a man being wounded or a man suffering the ordinary hazards of war. These are people who suffered special hazards.

Mr. Low: The point I made was that the Government are responsible for insuring everybody against the damage they suffer in any way when they are in uniform serving their King and country.

Mr. Grimond: I do not want to pursue the matter further at this stage. But if we accept that there is a special case here—a case of a nature which entitles the British Government to go to the Japanese Government and say, "Over and above the ordinary reparations you pay at the end of the war, we are entitled to demand a special payment because of what you have done to our prisoners of war"—then we accept the principle that what has happened to these people is outside the ordinary hazards of war.

Mr. Low: Mr. Low indicated dissent——

Mr. Grimond: I see the hon. Gentleman does not agree. I fully appreciate his point of view. At any rate, I should not pursue this argument if I felt that by doing so we were absolving the Ministry of Pensions from responsibility for these men. I thought that point was made clear by the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood, who stated that all the ordinary pension rights would remain to these men. As has also been pointed our, both by the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, this Motion does not in any way preclude from compensation civilians in the Far East or German prisoners of war. Naturally, a Motion like this must be limited in some way, but if the House wishes to go further and to investigate other claims I am sure no one would be happier than myself.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider the claims of Japanese prisoners of war in Russian hands?

Mr. Grimond: No. We are responsible only for the acts of our own country. We are not responsible for running Russia. If we were, we might run it differently;

at least, some of us might. Another argument advanced concerned the reparations claim over property. I do not believe that is relevant. This is over and above the question of property. This was a calculated campaign to exterminate human values in the prison camps.
The terms of the Motion are deliberately drawn widely. We do not seek to pin the Government exactly to this Motion. The Minister of State says he is examining the possibility of endowing certain institutions for helping people who may have suffered in the Far East. Speaking entirely for myself, I would say that that is a most attractive proposition. We are not in the least saying to the Government, "You must pay these men exactly this money and do it in exactly this way and give it to precisely these people." We are trying, first of all, to establish a principle for people who suffered from gross ill-treatment in an organised policy. Secondly, arising out of that, we are trying to establish that the Government should make some claim against the Japanese, should do what they can to enforce it, and should do something for those who suffered.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Snow: Listening to the debate, I have been rather distressed by some of the arguments used from both sides of the House. There has been a tendency to produce some rather facile logic about equating the dropping of the atomic bomb and its results with the treatment of our prisoners in the Far East. I shall return to that point later in my speech.
At the outset, I would say, I think, that as they read the literature and the expressed views issued by the Far Eastern prisoners of war, hon. Members will have been struck by the very studied moderation with which they have presented their case. Do not let us be under any delusions that this country, where we frequently pride ourselves on being so calm, is not, in effect, subject to emotion. Many of us, even those of us who are relatively young, can remember the sort of emotionalism that was aroused at the end of the First World War, and I think that the Far Eastern prisoners of war would not have been outside their rights had they given the greatest publicity to the more horrific instances that occurred when they were


prisoners in the Far East. They did not do that, and they have preferred—I think rightly—to base their case on one of principle, and to appeal to the moderate and modest sense of the people who have to adjudicate in these matters.
I should like to refer to one or two of the comments made by the Minister of State, as I frankly do not accept his official viewpoint that the economic capacity of Japan would not bear the imposition of some very strong penal demand. If one studies the photographs and documents of life in Japan now, one cannot help feeling that, for a nation that did what they did in the last war and committed the crimes that they did, a large part of the population is not having such a bad time.
That may be due to the under-pinning of the Japanese economy by the United States of America, and it may be that in the back of my hon. Friend's mind was the thought that we were going to find it very difficult to try to write into the peace treaty with Japan some clause to produce the compensation for which we are asking because, taking it to its logical conclusion, it would be the Americans who would pay for it. I do not think that that sort of consideration should be considered very much, because I have no doubt that some claim could be worked out whereby the compensation which is asked for tonight could be produced over a period of time in such a way that it would not wreck the economy of Japan.
Reference was made to the effects and the hopeless situation resulting from demanding excessive reparations from Germany after the First World War. I think it will be generally agreed that the knowledge of monetary technique has improved since then, and that we ought to be able to extract—if a satisfactory case can be proved—some adequate compensation for the people for whom we are speaking tonight.
I did have some correspondence with the Treasury last year on the subject of the Japanese frozen assets in this country, and I was rather amazed in one letter that I received from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to read that we were not disposed to earmark such frozen assets as we had for any particular purpose as this would be the subject of international

agreement. But the United States did not do that. I think it was the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) who asked earlier on whether it was not a fact that the American legislation referred not only to Japanese but also to German ex-prisoners of war. I do not see how that affects the issue.
The fact is that the Custodian of Enemy Property in the United States was permitted by an Act of Congress to sequester the frozen assets and pay them into a fund for the compensation of prisoners of war. We are trying to build up some sort of Western democratic morality, and if it is moral for the Americans to do this, why should it not be moral to use what frozen assets we may possess, and, indeed, to secure other funds from Japan, in order to give our own people what the Americans have given theirs? I know that I am putting this in rather simple terms, but to my mind there is no particular harm in doing that.
I should like to refer now to one of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn). I do not think he is in the Chamber now. I am not blaming him for that. I think he said in his speech that the customs and usages of war have always taken into account the sort of atrocities which are the subject of our Motion tonight. But that just is not so; because if we create international law, if we create international conventions such as the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention, with the express purpose of preventing these sorts of atrocities, then when these atrocities happen we should take steps to enforce them.
I should like to refresh the memories of hon. Members with the provisions of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention. The Hague Convention provides under Article III that the belligerent violating the principles and regulations annexed to the Convention shall, if the case demands it, be liable to pay compensation; and it further declares that such a belligerent shall be responsible for the acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.
The Geneva Convention provides that camps shall be in healthy areas—and one of my hon. Friends has given some evidence on that score. It also provides that the food and sanitation space must be


on the same scale as that provided for the troops of the holding Power; that there should be hygienic and medical facilities; that work must not be connected with military operations; and that the discipline—except for corporal punishment, which is expessly forbidden—should be the same as for the troops of the holding Power, and that imprisonment for 30 days at one time is the severest form of punishment allowed.
All these provisions and many more were violated. I want to be as little offensive as I can, and to carry with me even the more extremist elements in the House, when I ask, What is the use of setting up a United Nations Organisation and all the world authorities if, when the time comes to enforce its rules, we have not got the guts to enforce them? Perhaps I have expressed myself rather heatedly, but a few days ago I had a chance meeting with one of the members of my local constituency association. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who introduced this Motion quite rightly drew the attention of the House to the fact that this was not a party matter, and could not and should not be a party matter. I wish that my own experience in my constituency had been the same, but I do not hold the House responsible for a local Conservative controlled newspaper which gave me a rather tough time.
It so happened that I had a chance of meeting with one of my local ex-prisoners of war. He was in Nagasaki and had been attending an electric motor at a factory when the atomic bomb fell. For days before that particular incident, when the whole place was virtually obliterated, he had been tending this motor although he was not technically equipped and fitted to do so, and at regular intervals the Japanese foreman whipped his legs. I examined his legs. There were rings of scars all the way up the calves. It seems to me that there is in this country a tendency to want to forget what happened in the years that these men spent in Japan.
There are many unpleasant things happening in the world which we would like to forget. There are great problems developing in Africa which we wish were not there, but they are there, and they have to be faced. Do not let us get into the habit of forgetting what went on. We must see that the nation

does not forget, and that we do not forget. It may well be that in this post-war period we have to find new allies. Every single ally ought to be made to understand precisely what international morality is. Hon. Members in this House may remember a photograph that was published during the war, which fell by accident into Allied hands—a photograph taken by a Japanese soldier of some poor devil—I believe he was an Australian pilot who was shot down and captured in the Pacific—which showed him kneeling in front of a block, with a black ribbon across his eyes, about to be beheaded. I cannot forget that. I think that it is to the great credit of the people who asked us to put forward this Motion that they have not indulged in that sort of publicity in the country. I do not excuse myself for reminding hon. Members of that incident. I am merely saying that it is one of the things which should lend emotion and colour to this debate.
Lastly, let me say this: I think that the Government must understand that there is a strong feeling in the country about this matter. Many of us started off with the idea that this was a sort of pressure group trying to get money on the cheap. Some of us began by being rather hostile to the idea. I did. I have since studied the matter, and I consider that there is a strong case. May I suggest to my hon. Friend that if this Motion is carried tonight we shall regard it as the moral responsibility of the Government to bring this point to the attention of the Treaty Powers when they are convened.

9.39 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: I shall try to be brief and to compress my remarks into a few sentences. First, I see no objection to reparations, but those who may think that they are going to get something out of this should bear in mind the traditional difficulties of getting the actual money as the years pass. Our experience has been unhappy in that matter, and we must remember that we can only pay from one nation to another in goods.
Reparations, if paid at all, should be for hurt done which has caused lasting results to mind or body and, therefore, they should be distributed on a medical assessment of the hurt which has resulted


and is still present. They should not be divided in relation to the number of days spent in a certain place. Some may have spent easy days even in Japan. There have been individual cases of prisoners who have acted as batmen and have consequently been tolerantly treated. There have been other cases where men have been most brutally treated. The test should not be how many days a man was a prisoner but whether he was hurt and how much.
If there were a fund out of which payment could be made, I am not sure that it ought really to go to prisoners of war. It ought to go to those who have been wounded, generally according to a medical assessment of their wounding. If it did go to prisoners of war I am sure that it should be done on the basis of a medical assessment. I cannot see any claim on behalf of widows, and it is only right that I should say so. Who can say that the widow of a man who died as a prisoner in Japan suffered greater anxiety than the widow of a man who did not come up from the submarine the other day? How can we pick out one widow for a bonus, from whatever source it comes, and leave other widows without it? I cannot think that that is fair.
The Government have shown a profound lack of courage in dealing with this matter. They have come here with a half-baked suggestion about using assets in this country for some benevolent purpose and a half-suggestion that there should be a fund for these men, but the scheme is not yet worked out although they have been considering it for months. They ought to have had the courage to come here and say where they stood. If there was a Division I should vote against them and would support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwood (Brigadier Smyth) in his Motion.
The Government ought to have said where they stood, either that they had a plan or that they had not a plan. To leave it to the House and then say that they have been giving the matter consideration for months shows a shameful lack of responsibility. I would vote for the Motion if there was a Division, but I plead with the House that there should not be a Division. It is essentially a matter about which there ought not to be a vote. Let the Government accept

the Motion, and I beg them, when they come to consider it, to deal with it according to the principles which in these very few minutes I have tried to establish.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: All hon. Members will feel that it is pleasant on certain occasions to have a discussion which does not proceed strictly on party lines and I believe that we should all like to pay tribute to the speeches which have already been made. A certain amount of heat has been engendered on one or two points, but they have been points only of argument and not of prejudice. This is not just a cry from the past; it is a matter which is of present practical importance. Our troops are engaged in hostilities against forces many of whom served with the Japanese Army in the last war, and, therefore, the result of this discussion and any decision that the House may take may do something to see that those who are unfortunately taken prisoner in the present campaign are rather better treated.
There are three stages in the argument. The first is the vindication of the claim itself and the obtaining of the judgment; the second is the assessment and the collection of the damages; and the third is the distribution of the proceeds. As to the distribution of the proceeds. I do not believe that any strong views are held by-anybody who has spoken in favour of the Motion, although the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) put forward an interesting suggestion and my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) has made another suggestion for the distribution of any money which may be obtained. There has been some criticism of the figure that has been put forward for the assessment or the computation of the claim. It was very difficult to get any rough and ready basis of assessment, and so the calculation was suggested of so much for each day of imprisonment, thus quantifying the claim but not regulating the manner in which the money would be distributed.
I am perfectly certain that one is speaking on behalf of these prisoners of war when one says that they do not want to get anything at the expense of their fellow countrymen and they do not want to do anyone out of their just rights in other


sections of the community that may have been similarly wronged. I was very disappointed with the reply of the Minister of State, and speaking personally I do not think it is good enough. The best part of the speech was his announcement that there would be a free vote, and I am authorised for the Opposition to say that there will also be a free vote on this matter on this side of the House tonight.
The hon. Gentleman emphasised the difficulties of collection. What I should like to have had from him was a clear statement that this claim is going to be formulated and prosecuted, and that we are going to see it is acknowledged by the Japanese. There was nothing in the hon. Gentleman's speech to give us any hope that any of those things were going to be done. We further suggested that some action might be taken along the lines taken by the Americans of using sequestered Japanese assets, though in our case it would only be as a token, or to consider the Australian action of setting up a commission to report on the matter.
What I do not understand is, what is the difficulty about this matter? The real point is that we should vindicate the rule of law in international affairs. Sections of The Hague and Geneva Conventions have been read to the House, and I will not weary hon. Members with the actual words again. But they specifically provide for an offending Power to pay compensation, and they further lay down that a belligerent is responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of their armed forces. Therefore, we have a clearly, defined legal right, and if we are ever going to get international law to work we have got to make use of it.
All these arguments about what should be done, what claim should be formulated or not formulated, and so on are completely irrelevant to that issue. What we want to establish is that there has been a breach of international law, and if there has been such a breach the Government should prosecute the suit on behalf of those offended against and, at least, bring the offending Power to judgment. Whether any money is got out of it afterwards is a different matter, but the important thing is to vindicate the rule of international law.
We come then to a question of fact. I do not think there is any dispute in any

part of the House with regard to the fact that there was a breach of these two conventions, one of which the Japanese Government signed and ratified, and the other of which they agreed to by telegram in February, 1942. What is more, it is quite clear that the breaches of these agreements or conventions were a deliberate act of Government policy. I was told only today that one Japanese officer when discussing this matter, said, "You have got to remember that this is a 100 years war. We may lose the first round, but we shall win in the end." Possibly that throws an interesting light on what the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), said about the re-armament of the Japanese. If it is indeed to be 100 years war, it is as well that the Japanese nation should know at a comparatively early stage that they are expected to observe the conventions and the rules of international law.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Do I understand the hon. and learned Member is against Japanese re-armament? Am I to get no reply?

Mr. Lloyd: I have no intention of being distracted, for there have been enough distractions in this debate already. My point was that this was a deliberate act of Government policy, and I give an example to show something of the Japanese mentality which might be behind that. Another Japanese officer said that it was, in fact, their intention and desire that the white man should lose face throughout the East. It was deliberately done to discredit and disparage the white man, as a deliberate act of policy.
I am told that in committing that deliberate act of policy considerable lengths were gone to in certain cases. In one case where a camp was visited—very much an exceptional happening—by a representative of the protecting Power, all the conversations were vetted beforehand. Officers were required to tell what they were going to say to the visitors, and they were threatened with the severest penalties if they said anything which had not been previously vetted. False notices were put up to indicate that there was a canteen in a certain place and that certain goods were purchaseable there when in fact no such goods were purchaseable and there was no such canteen. I give that example to show that the Japanese knew perfectly


well what were the rules and that they were deliberately refusing to carry them out.
The Japanese Prime Minister himself is reputed to have said to the commanders of prison camps that they must not be obsessed by mistaken ideas of humanitarianism. The Japanese Government actually issued a manual dealing with the most effective methods of torture. It is clear that this was a deliberate act of Government policy and these were deliberate breaches of international law.
To reinforce this point—this is a personal matter which comes back to the rights and wrongs of the individual—and to show that we really cannot continue to do nothing about this matter, I should like to give particulars of the case of an interpreter who expressed the opinion to the Japanese commandant that the Japanese had no right to strike a prisoner. As a result, he was severely assaulted and beaten up in the office and was then confined in a Japanese air raid shelter in front of the guardroom for 86 days. He was fed on one bowl of rice and one mug of water per day. He was not allowed to wash or shave or to speak to anyone. As the result, at the end of his confinement he became mentally deranged, contracted blackwater fever and nearly died. That is a typical case. To those who study these matters the horrifying thing is that it is difficult to select one example which is more horrible than the others. It was the general course of treatment meted out.
I do not think any hon. Member can dispute that there were these breaches of international law. The figures speak for themselves, by the percentage of deaths. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale asked why should the widow of a former Far Eastern prisoner of war be compensated because of the death of her husband. We believe that in the case of by far the greatest percentage the deaths were completely unnecessary and would not have happened but for these breaches of international law.

Sir I. Fraser: I did not raise the question whether a widow ought to be compensated. I asked: "Shall we put the widow of an ex-prisoner of war before the widow of a man who was in that submarine?"

That is what I said, which is quite a different question.

Mr. Lloyd: They are in two completely different categories and I would take each of them upon its merits. One desires that they should both be adequately compensated. The point is that one man would not have died except as a result of a breach of international law, and that there is a claim for compensation. All we are dealing with in regard to these people is claims under the international convention to which the Japanese were parties.
The suggestion is made that it is the Government's duty to compensate. It may be so, it may be the Government's duty to pay proper pensions but what has that to do with the right of action under international law? They are completely different matters. If we want to uphold the rule of international law we have to see that breaches of it are punished. One hon. Member said that he did not like the idea of equal payments. But that is a comparatively minor matter. Again there is the objection that the Motion does not cover the position of ex-German prisoners of war. If any of them were treated in breach of international law they have an equal claim, and I hope that the Government would be the first to acknowledge that, and come forward and sustain their case.
Nor am I despondent about the possibility of collection. I am told that the Japanese Prime Minister has announced, or it has been announced by some one speaking for the Japanese Government, that they desire the interest of their foreign bonds to be paid again. Why? To re-establish their financial credit. If they want to re-establish their moral credit, if they want to be admitted to the comity of nations, if they regret what has gone on in the past, let them make some payment on account of this claim.
It is impossible for the House to forget these things. I do not think that the attitude of the Government has been as outspoken and definite as it should have been. I hope very much that the House will not see fit to defeat this Motion; I hope that it will accept it with no one voting against it, and that the Government, having accepted this Motion, will then proceed to take some definite and active steps to prosecute this claim.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Booth: I cannot adduce any further arguments, I have not the time to do so, but I am more than grateful to have the opportunity to link myself with others in support of this Motion. I can only say, like so many more who saw those prisoners come home, and remembering that the Bolton Battalion had scarcely landed at Singapore before it fell into Japanese hands, that I listened with alarm to the Minister talking about reparations after the previous war and the dislocation that they caused. I quite agree with what he said in that respect, but for him to link it with the payment to 35,000 men—not much more than a phantom brigade—disappointed and bewildered me.
If the Government have been considering this matter—I cannot see much evidence of it, but I will certainly accept that that is so—I am fairly sure that the Government will consider it to much better purpose if they are directed by this House. If they accept the will of this House tonight they will give consideration to this claim. That is all that we are asking. I am not concerned about other prisoners or about the payment——

Brigadier Smyth: Brigadier Smyth rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Booth: I am concerned only that whatever proposals emerge, whatever payment may be decided upon, a token will be laid upon the altar—I put it that way because I feel that way about it—in reparation of a breach of that international law to which we have all subscribed, and which, it has been truly said, is the only hope of the nations in the coming days.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That this House is of the opinion that His Majesty's Government should give very early consideration to the claim of the British Far Eastern prisoners of war, and the dependants of those who died in capitivity, for compensation from the Japanese through treaty or by other methods for the brutalities, indignities and gross under-nourishment to which they were subjected in flagrant contravention of The Hague Convention, on similar lines to the action already taken by the United States Government or that decided upon by the Australian Government in this connection.

Orders of the Day — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (TRAFFIC CONTROL)

10.1 p.m.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 25th April, 1951, entitled the London Traffic (Festival of Britain) (Traffic Notices) Regulations, 1951 (S.I. 1951, No. 737), a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th April, be annulled.
It is very fitting that on a matter relating to the Festival of Britain the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is to reply, should come before the House attired in such sartorial splendour. It is indeed fitting that we shall for a few moments be discussing matters pertaining to the West End of London. As will be seen from the Statutory Instrument with which this Motion is concerned, the Minister of Transport is empowered to make regulations for the control of traffic during the period of the Festival. But it should be pointed out that the powers are of a permissive character and relate to a part or the whole of the period.
The Minister has seen fit to make regulations covering the whole of the period of the Festival commencing from 4th May. There is no doubt that making the Regulations to cover that period was done in the expectation that very heavy traffic would ensue. I think that the volume of traffic which has been apparent in London during the last few days has been the result, not of the Festival, but of the visit of their Majesties the King and Queen of Denmark.
The first of the four points I have to put before the Under-Secretary is that these Regulations are in part unnecessary, but it is of the very nature of these Regulations that one cannot pray against them in part; one has to pray against the Whole. I contend—(1) that they are unnecessary; (2) that no reasonable alternative parking accommodation is made available; (3) that in some cases they cannot possibly affect the Festival traffic which is the ostensible purpose of the Regulations; and (4) that great inconvenience will be imposed upon people who wish to travel to the West End of London during the coming months.
Before 4th May regulations existed in practically all of the area under discussion


from 11.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m., and by this latter hour most of the business traffic had gone and it was possible to park without interference. Indeed, a great many cars were parked, without visible dislocation of the general flow of traffic. In some streets covered by the Regulations it is undoubtedly desirable that extra restrictions should be imposed, but in others, such extra restrictions are unnecessary. I do not propose to deal with every one of the streets covered by these Regulations; it is sufficient for me to mention a few, such as Albemarle Street. Dover Street, Berkeley Street, Stratton Street and Jermyn Street.
Some of these are one-way streets and only a small volume of traffic normally flows through them after 6 or 6.30 p.m. It is therefore my submission that in these streets the restrictions are unnecessary and should not be extended beyond 6.30 which existed before the new Regulations came into force. Then there is no reasonable alternative accommodation. In imposing these Regulations it is obvious that the intention was to free the traffic of London. But the effect is to do something quite contrary. It certainly takes away some of the traffic from some of these streets, but it imposes it on what I might call the reception areas where greater inconvenience is caused than if the Regulations had never been imposed at all. As hon. Members know, garages in the West End of London are invariably full and the only alternative open to motorists is to park in streets well away from this area.
The third point is that the Regulations cannot possibly affect Festival traffic which is their ostensible reason. The main part of the Festival is on the South Bank and the roads which I have specified are by no stretch of the imagination within any direct route of Festival traffic. The Regulations are a great inconvenience. The object of the Festival of Britain is to encourage people to come to London to see what we have to offer.
The whole purpose of these Regulations seems to me to be to hide from the rest of the world what we have in London and to make life as difficult and inconvenient as possible for anyone who wishes to visit London. Practically all the theatres in London start at a relatively early hour, and it is quite impossible

for people to park their cars at 9 o'clock in the evening and to come out of the theatre and do just that. The Regulations reveal evidence of inadequate examination of the problem and if enforced rigidly, will lead to a complete blockage of all London traffic, which is the reverse of what is desired.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: I beg to second the Motion.
We realise that in framing not only these Regulations but also the various other Regulations relating to the parking of cars in the central district of London during the Festival of Britain, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis has an extremely difficult job. I suppose that when the Regulations were first thought of it was expected that a vast number of people would be coming into London, many by car; and it was probably conceived that there would be a tremendous congestion in the West End. The Under-Secretary will probably agree that it does not appear from what we have seen this far that anything like these stringent Regulations prohibiting the waiting of cars in a whole series of streets in the very heart of the Metropolis are really necessary at this stage; and I hope that we shall hear tonight that the Government and the Commissioner of Police are thinking again about this matter.
The hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper) put four major points and I should like to take up and amplify them a little, and to refer first to the point about the inconvenience which will be caused by this arrangement. The traffic in Central London has for many years been a tremendous problem and no one knows that better than the Minister of Transport whom we are glad to see here tonight. It is not an easy task for any police force to regulate the traffic adequately, but I do not think at the moment there is any need for the inconvenience which would be caused to two distinct types of people if these Regulations are allowed to stand.
There are the people coming to London to see not only the South Bank Exhibition, but the Exhibition of Science at South Kensington and the Lansbury, Poplar, and the other minor exhibitions and attractions which are being arranged. These people will want to park their cars,


and, really, unless the Government tell us that either they or the Festival authorities have provided adequate car parking facilities, not only on the South Bank and in South Kensington and elsewhere, but also around the centre of London, I do not think that we ought to say that people coming to London ought to be prohibited from allowing their cars to stand in the streets.
That is the first section of people with whom I want to deal, but there is another section who are, I would say, of even greater importance, and they are the ordinary people of London themselves. Let us take the case of the business or professional man who has an office in the centre of the West End. He finds, as a result of these Regulations, that, whereas he was formerly able to park his car without inconvenience and substantial hindrance outside his premises or very close to them without causing obstruction—and, if he had been causing obstruction he would have been "chivvied" and eventually prosecuted—under these Regulations, he is prohibited from doing what he used to do for years past. He finds that he has to take his car right out of his way to one of the other car parks or garages in the locality, or else leave his car at a substantial distance away from his place of business, and travel to it by some other method of transport, which, in view of the crowds coming into London, will be something of a burden.
I feel that these Regulations and this plan for London car parking during the Festival of Britain have not been adequately thought out. Whether that be so or not, I suggest that, in the light of the experience which we have already gained over this last week, when, probably, the pressure has been pretty close to the highest we shall ever get during the Festival season, we might consider whether or not there might be some relaxation of these very stringent provisions. After all, the West End of London is the heart around which the whole Festival is built. People come here not only to see the South Bank Exhibition and the other attractions, but also for shopping, to go to the theatres and to do all sorts of other things which they want to do. We ought to try to make their lot as easy as we possibly can, commensurate with the safety of the roads in the metropolis and the need for avoiding

tremendous congestion. Therefore, I hope that, the Under-Secretary will tell us that the Government have thought again about the whole problem, and that they are prepared to introduce some kind of relaxation. In those circumstances, I doubt very much whether my hon. Friend would wish to press his Motion.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Shepherd: I should like, if possible, to get from the Under-Secretary some idea of how these Regulations were arrived at and what bodies were consulted before this extraordinary stuff was put on paper. I wonder, for example, whether the motor associations, the R.A.C. and the A.A., were consulted. I very much doubt whether they were. I wonder whether, indeed, the Minister of Transport really looked at the Regulations fully and carefully before he signed them. I have a feeling that the Commissioner of Police presented the Minister of Transport with a list of the Regulations he desired, and that the right hon. Gentleman obligingly signed them. I should be glad to hear exactly what is the history of these Regulations, because I cannot conceive that they have been formulated with due regard to the interests concerned and as a result of consultation with them.
My hon. Friend has said, quite properly, that we are experiencing, or will shortly experience, perhaps the peak of the traffic so far as London and the Festival are concerned, because, although many people will come here, the holiday season will soon be upon us, and, of course, a lot of people will leave the centre of London and the normal life of Central London will be less busy than it is at the present time. So we are dealing at the moment, at any rate, with what appears to be almost the peak period of this traffic problem. I do not think, and I am sure the House will not think, that these Regulations are justified.
When a short time ago the right hon. Gentleman announced the findings of the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee, I told him that what he was going to do was to put more restrictions on the motorist and to make no provision at all for extra visitors. This is precisely what has happened. No attempt at all has been made to provide extra facilities, but only, in my submission, an attempt in many cases to impose more senseless restrictions. The London and Home


Counties Advisory Committee pointed out that the Government had requisitioned 20 garages. Will the hon. Gentleman say what steps have been taken to get these garages out of Government hands so that there may be some chance of motorists getting their cars into them? Will he also say what consideration has been given to parking in the London parks?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I doubt if that question bears any relation to the matter of the various streets in respect of which the Regulations have been made. The hon. Gentleman must. I am afraid, confine himself to the Regulations.

Mr. Shepherd: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I say the explanatory note makes it quite clear that the Commissioner of Police is empowered to make regulations for preventing obstruction, and if the case is—and it obviously is—that these cars are causing obstruction, surely I am entitled to say that in order to do away with obstruction, some more positive steps should have been taken?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may refer to the matter in general terms, but I gathered that he was going into some question of garages, which I did not quite follow and which did not seem to me to have any direct relation to the Regulations.

Mr. Shepherd: I will not pursue that point further except to say that I feel that instead of these punitive measures, there should have been some more practical response from the Government.
I want to turn for a moment to the question of the prohibition of parking until 9 o'clock in the evening. I want the hon. Gentleman to tell the House precisely why parking it to be prohibited in these streets until 9 p.m. Could anything be more senseless at Festival time than to say that people who bring their cars to the theatres shall not be allowed to park them? It is really a piece of utter nonsense, and it fortifies my view that these Regulations have been laid down by the Commissioner of Police without any of the authorities giving them proper consideration. I understand that the Fire Brigade are interested in this

question. If they are, let us hear about it. It appears that the Festival has nothing to do with this 9 o'clock regulation, and that it is purely a question of the Fire Brigade. As I say, if that is so, let us hear about it, and not have it foisted on us as something relating to the Festival.
I wish to refer to another aspect. In the West End we have a worse position than ever before, because, as my hon. Friend said, the side roads covered by the Regulations are now more congested than ever. We still have streets, such as Sackville Street, where there is bilateral parking, and where very often there is traffic passing either up or down, thus adding to the congestion. Is it not quite absurd to have the centre of the aisle in wide thoroughfares, such as St. James's and parts of Piccadilly, closed to traffic, and yet to allow streets like Sackville Street to be completely jammed?
Will the hon. Gentleman say why there is no prohibition of parking in the centre lane? In places like St. James's and the bottom end of Regent Street, it is almost impossible for traffic to move because one cannot drive over a series of obelisks Surely, this deliberate intensification of what we all know to be a difficult problem is not justifiable, especially when we trying to encourage visitors to London. I hope the hon. Gentleman is going to be practical in his reply, and will say how he has arrived at these decisions. I hope he will say what organisations have been consulted, what is the justification for the 9 o'clock rule and if he will give us an undertaking that there will be a review of these most absurd Regulations.

10.20 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I shall be a little longer than I was yesterday because I have now recovered some of my voice. The plain truth of the matter is that the Traffic Department of Scotland Yard are completely incompetent. Yet they arrange all these fines and I used to get fined at intervals for parking. When one considers the way they carry on their job, one must agree that they are just too incompetent for words. We ought to send a lot of policemen over to Paris. Our London policemen ought to be instructed how to control traffic. The Paris policemen are so much more competent.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order! This is not a question of the competency or in-competency of the police but of the authority given by these Regulations to erect notices.

Sir H. Williams: I agree, but paragraphs 2 and 3 of these Regulations, for instance, have been inserted on the advice of the Traffic Department of Scotland Yard and it is Scotland Yard that we are attacking. I live in Westminster not very far away from here and I am very familiar with all these streets. Why should these Regulations have to apply for instance to Vauxhall Bridge Road,
between its Junction with Victoria Street and a point 300 feet south of that junction"?
What has that to do with the Festival of Britain? I have something to say to the Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department whom we all like very much in a way. He is in the wrong Government but he is a nice chap. I very much doubt whether the document on no waiting between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. would be found to be valid if it were brought before a court. If I were a judge of the High Court, which I am not likely to be because I am too old and I am not a lawyer anyway, I think the police would be in an awful mess about this. I have not heard before of regulation by picture, such as the diagram in this Statutory Instrument.
I was being driven in a taxicab today and twice I saw these silly notices. There is no reason for them at all from a practical point of ciew, not even today when there was a great deal of ceremonial in the streets. Yet there was a mass of these "No waiting" notices. Why should one not wait? Why should one not leave one's vehicle in a place where it does not cause obstruction? These Regulations are a complete bureaucratic obstruction of the freedom of the private individual. I would not mind these things if they were done by an intelligent and competent traffic authority. The traffic authority to whom we are addressing ourselves are represented by the Ministry of Transport and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, but they are subject to the discretion of the Metropolitan Police. If I thought the Metropolitan Police were competent in traffic regulation, which they are not, I would take more notice of these Regulations.
I think we are entitled to consider not merely the Regulations before us but the competence of the people who propose them. When somebody promotes a Bill in Parliament and petitions Parliament for this that and the other, we are entitled on Second Reading to analyse the morals—in the higher sense—of those who petition. In this case it is the Ministry of Transport who petitions Parliament with the assistance of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Therefore, we are entitled to examine the Under-Secretary's morals. He knows what I mean. I have nothing against him; we are very good personal friends. We are entitled to examine not merely the proposals before us but those who promote these proposals.
If I had the faintest idea that London traffic was being competently controlled today I might foe impressed, but I think it is being most incompetently controlled. One only has to observe a policeman see somebody breaking one of these Regulations which causes an obstruction. He will hold up all the traffic for 10 minutes while, with a stub pencil, he writes down all the details. It is really too dreadful for words. Therefore, the time has come when we who represent the ordinary public, should make our protest against the incompetent way in which London traffic is being controlled. I think these Regulations will make the matter infinitely worse. For that reason, if my hon. and gallant Friend goes to a Division, I shall be delighted to go into the Lobby with him.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke: I have a higher regard for members of the Metropolitan police than my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be an excellent thing that this question has been raised, because a good many people feel that these Regulations are what I might call a precautionary panic measure, and that the experience of the summer of 1951 is not going to justify them.
We all, except possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East, have a great deal of sympathy with the Minister of Transport and the Commissioner of Police in the task they have to perform in keeping traffic moving in London. We all know that the fundamental cause of


these troubles which the Regulations are endeavouring to correct is the lack of parking space arising from the failure in years gone by to provide the parking accommodation which alone could cater for all the motor traffic which is using London. Now we have to make the best of a bad job.
I should very much like to hear from the Under-Secretary what authorities have been consulted about this matter. It is one of the odd features of London local government that the London County Council, though it is the town planning authority concerned with road junctions and the like, has no control over questions like the restriction of parking. I am quite sure that the whole of these restrictions lasting from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. cannot be explained by reference to the requirements of the London Fire Brigade. There are many considerations besides fire which have to be taken into account, and I can say from personal knowledge that the General Purposes Committee of the London County Council has not had an opportunity to consider or express an opinion on the policy which is represented by these regulations.
The main point I want to make is this. It is impossible to manage the flow of London traffic without obtaining the good will of all the participants in it. On the whole, the ordinary motorist who uses Central London frequently gains a fair impression of where he will be obstructing and where he will not be obstructing. In the individual case he may be wrong; nevertheless, he builds up a sort of corpus of knowledge. No one but a madman would park his car in the Strand between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. and imagine that he was not going to cause an obstruction; nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that any serious obstruction whatever will be caused by cars parked at five minutes past nine in the morning or five minutes to nine in the evening in a wide one-way street such as Albemarle Street. The result of that will be that the motorists who have to find parking spaces will be encouraged to disregard and try and get round the Regulations which the Government are making.
So as to secure the good will of all concerned I would urge the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to reconsider this matter and make sure he is not seeking to

impose on London in 1951 a more drastic control than is really needed. I urge him to adapt his Regulations flexibly in order that we can achieve the result on which we have all set our hearts—to keep traffic moving and yet to persuade everybody coming to London—Festival visitors and Londoners alike—that they will be treated reasonably.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Higgs: I hope it will not be considered an impertinence for a countryman to barge into the affairs of London in a discussion of this sort. These Regulations are really made to prevent country folks from making too much of a nuisance of themselves when they come to London for the Festival. My first thought is one of regret that it should be found necessary to increase the number of warning signs to motorists, particularly at a time when there are going to be so many motorists up from the provinces in London. The behaviour of London pedestrians differs greatly from that of pedestrians in the country and I regret that it is necessary to impose any additional restrictions which mean that motorists have yet something else to look out for, apart from finding their way about the city.
The form in which these Regulations are laid is a little unusual. I understand that the Order is binding on one person only—the Commissioner of Police. He has already made rules which apply to motorists and this Order is necessary, for some reason which I do not quite understand, before he is entitled to put up the notices necessary to draw the attention of motorists to the Regulations he has made. It is only for that purpose that the Government have to come to the House with this Order. Consequently, our discussion should be limited strictly to the question of whether this notice which is illustrated on the back of the Order is an adequate message to convey to the eyes of the motorists in order that they may know by what regulations they are bound. If a motorist is prosecuted, he will not be prosecuted under this Order. The only person who could be prosecuted under the Order is the Commissioner of Police, for not putting up the notices.
It is a matter of reasonable comment, I think, that the Regulations made by the Commissioner of Police which make this Order necessary, are not published


nor, so far as I know, is there any place where hon. Members can conveniently find a copy. How we are to judge whether this notice which is here depicted is adequate warning to motorists of the Regulations we have not seen, I do not understand. It is the duty of this House to scrutinise an Order such as this.
There are one or two questions I should like to ask about what is on this piece of paper. All those who have had occasion to be in a magistrates' court when such matters as this come up, are familiar with the rather monotonous routine which police officers have to go through to prove a case against an offender. They have to prove that the speedometer was at a certain level over a certain time, that tyres were at the correct pressure during their tour of duty, and so on. Why is it necessary to compel the Commissioner of Police to hang these notices on a post, a lamp-post or other standard? Most of the notices which I have seen when travelling the streets during the last week are standing like newspaper placards on the pavement edge.
If I am right, and if these notices which say "No parking here: Festival of Britain" are intended to convey to the motorist a warning about regulations which the Commissioner of Police has made, I hope no policeman will prosecute me because the notices are standing on a placard and not suspended from a post, lamp or other standard. I have no doubt that the Commissioner of Police will do his best to place these notices in such a position that they are conspicuous, and that the post is arranged "in alternate black or yellow horizontal bands 12 inches in depth."
If I am prosecuted for disobeying one of the notices it will be sufficient defence for me if I can go and measure one of these posts and find that the yellow band is 11½ inches in depth and the black band is 12½ inches. I have no doubt, this wasp-like colour is attractive and will catch the eye of the motorist. I take the view that the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, if he is ordered by the House, can be trusted to put the notices in such a colour and position that they will be reasonable to look on and they will catch the eye.
There are one or two other points that arise. One gathers from the name of the

regulations, where the words "Festival of Britain" appear in brackets and in small lettering on the notice, that it is to be a part of the celebration of the Festival. If one reads the wording of the Order, the only clue one gets is that the Regulations came into operation on 4th May, 1951. If, as we suspect, these Regulations are part of the Festival of Britain, how are they to be brought to an end?
The Commissioner of Police will be in serious difficulty, if, at the end, he takes the notices down, unless the Minister goes to the trouble of coming to the House and lays other Regulations cancelling these. I should have thought it would have been reasonable to anticipate that the Festival would end some time. It might have saved some little time, trouble and money. If my recollection of the Act of 1924 is correct, I believe there is a statutory obligation in Section 10 on the Minister of Transport to consult his advisory committee before any regulations are made. That he has probably done, and we shall perhaps be told about it. Also I believe under the same Section of the Act he has the obligation of convincing the Secretary of State that the time and trouble of police officers in carrying out the regulations will be well spent. Has he done so?
All these points occur to me on the face of these Regulations, but I repeat what I said at the beginning that we are unable to decide whether these Regulations are necessary, or whether the sign is good enough to convey the message it is intended to. I suppose if we could inspect the Regulation which the Commissioner of Police has made, we should learn what is the sting in the tail of the wasp, and what, therefore, is the penalty I shall have to pay if I decide to park my car in the centre of Westminster Bridge while I go to the Festival.

10.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): Although the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), was not in the last Parliament, we passed some good legislation, and the Public Works (Festival of Britain) Act, 1949, expressly recognised that special conditions would prevail in the Metropolis at the time of the Festival of Britain and in that Act Parliament extended to the Commissioners


powers under Section 52 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839.
The traffic congestion in Central London has been getting worse for several years, and if the day to day business of the Metropolis was to be continued, it was considered essential that "dead" traffic—that is, parked, lifeless vehicles—should not stay in the main thoroughfares and the roads leading into them. The extent of the prohibition is that all the roads covered in the Schedule are at present "yellow band" roads and waiting in them is prohibited only between 11.30 a.m. and 6.30 p.m. from Monday to Friday. The Festival hours at the South Bank Exhibition and at the Festival Gardens are from 10.30 a.m. to 11.30 p.m., and not only from Monday to Friday but from Monday to Saturday inclusive. Therefore, it was considered that the hours should be extended from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. because the 11.30 a.m.—I take that as an example—was considerably after the 10.30 a.m. at which the South Bank Exhibition and the Festival Gardens opened.
As to the discussion beforehand—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Croydon, East, has gone—this was thought out by the men in New Scotland Yard who have had many years' experience of keeping London's traffic flowing, but, naturally, the details of the project were discussed with the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) asked if the R.A.C. and the A.A. were represented on that body. They were on the Committee which considered this, and also on it were a number of members of the L.C.C., and the regulation came as a result of their discussions.

Mr. Shepherd: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the Advisory Committee approved the regulations, and can he say why it is necessary to prohibit parking in the West End of London on a Sunday morning?

Mr. de Freitas: I do not understand that. The Regulations prohibit parking from Monday to Saturday only.

Mr. Shepherd: I am sorry.

Mr. de Freitas: I said that it was one day longer than in the case of the "yellow band" streets because the exhibition

and the gardens are open on Saturdays as well.
If hon. Members will study the wording of the Regulations they will see that it is not nearly as restrictive as it at first appears. Vauxhall Bridge Road was mentioned by the hon. Member for Croydon, East. Only the junction with Victoria Street is concerned, and hon. Members will know that that is a very busy junction indeed.
There is a point which I agree is, at first sight, more difficult. Several hon. Members, especially the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper), referred to Albemarle Street, Dover Street and Berkeley Street, a cluster of streets north of Piccadilly, and Jermyn Street, south of Piccadilly. To anyone who has not studied these traffic problems—and I must confess it was difficult for me when I first saw them—it is difficult to realise that these streets are all part of a general plan for the traffic going in and out of Piccadilly. When we argue that traffic in these parts is so far away that it cannot affect the Festival traffic, we are wrong. These streets are so close to Piccadilly that any blockage of them will affect the flow down one of our main thoroughfares. That is why those streets are included.
On the general point of necessity, I was surprised that no hon. Member mentioned the fact that the Festival Gardens have not yet opened. That has an important bearing on the subject. Then of course, most important of all, there is the weather. The traffic in connection with the Festival has been considerably less in the last week owing to the very poor weather.

Mr. Hay: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that most people who go to the South Bank Exhibition have to book advance tickets, taken some time ago, so that the weather hardly affects the numbers who have bought them.

Mr. de Freitas: The South Bank Exhibition and the Festival Gardens are going to attract a large number of people, who will come up to London to see the sights and look at the lights possibly without even going into the Exhibition. That fact has to be faced by those people who live in London. An extremely important factor about such visitors is the weather, and we cannot say that up to


the present, thanks to the weather, the scheme has been overworked.
Let us consider for a moment what would happen if we had average May weather. [Interruption.] I did not appreciate that the hon. Member for Croydon, East, was giving us the benefit of his company again. I know that the hon. Member thinks that the Government seek to control a great deal, but we do not claim to be able to control the weather, and the weather here is an important factor. One day probably there will be a Minister for the Precipitation, Planning and Control of the Weather. It is within sight now, and I submit that if we had had weather control, this question of traffic control in London would never have arisen.

Sir H. Williams: On the subject of weather control, is it not a fact that it always rains when the Conservatives are holding a féte?

Mr. de Freitas: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman tempted me by a remark which he made under his breath on the subject of controls.
The fact that the weather so far has stopped the traffic we had every right to expect would come in a normal May should not blind us to the importance of this matter. Those whose duty it is to keep the traffic flowing in the Metropolis are convinced that given average weather for the remainder of May, June and July and throughout the summer, it will be seen that these Regulations are essential. If I may sum up, these Regulations are far less restrictive than they appear to be at first sight. Given average summer weather, they will be essential and that fact has already been apparent. So far as we can judge, the Regulations are supported by the general public, and also in this instance by the Press, who for once have been very congratulatory.
I can make this point, that the Commissioner is looking at this in the light of experience. He will bear in mind what has been said during this debate by hon. Members who have criticised the Regulations. In the light of that experience over the next few weeks—and it is important that we have a big holiday coming along which may be some measure, especially if the weather is fine—the Commissioner will consider whether some of these Regulations can be modified.

I would ask hon. Members not to press this Prayer.

Mr. Crouch: May I put this question to the hon. Gentleman before he sits down? He has made several observations on the weather. But surely he is not seriously suggesting that if any Government had control of the weather it would be better than the kind we have experienced lately?

10.51 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I think this matter is well illustrated by the last point which the hon. Gentleman made. That was with regard to the likelihood that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis might change these Regulations in the light of the experience gained during the next few weeks. Can the Commissioner do that without a subsequent regulation?

Mr. de Freitas: It depends upon the kind of change. If it is a matter of changing the time, the Commissioner makes a regulation, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has to make an order. If it is a question of changing the streets, the Commissioner of Police would have to make a regulation, and my right hon. Friend would have to make two orders.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It rather seems as though the Police Commissioner was uncertain of his designs, and might find it necessary to come to the House to effect a change. That surely is not the way to conduct the business of the House—week by week, according to whether it is fine or wet, hot or cold, the Minister of Transport having to come and lay regulations on the Table which may be prayed against day in and day out. That seems to be a stupid proceeding.
One would have thought that the Police Commissioner would have conducted a more serious inquiry before making the Regulations. The hon. Gentleman has cited the advice given to the Minister by the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee, and by other persons. I would put against that the practical experience of London of the politicians who have spoken tonight, and would say that they are very much more wise than the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee. It looks as if the Regulations have been badly framed, and have not been properly thought out, and


I think they ought to be retracted forthwith, and new ones brought in.
The Under-Secretary has made out a poor case, and has not dealt with the points raised in this debate by my hon. Friends. We admit that the flow of traffic to the Festival of Britain Exhibition in the morning, on fine warm days, may be heavy enough to justify putting up a notice restricting parking in some streets as early as 9 o'clock, but who supposes that it is necessary, in any state of the weather, to put these parking restrictions on as late as 9 o'clock at night?
The real reason for these Regulations is the normal volume of commercial traffic which blocks the roads. That is added to by the Festival traffic in the early hours of the day and in the afternoon. But that commercial traffic is removed from the streets of London in the early evening. Therefore, I can see no justification for adding this couple of hours in the evening. It would be quite easy to imagine a large volume of cars parked at the Festival of Britain Exhibition as late as 9 or 10, or 11 p.m. But even when those people leave the exhibition, and have to get away through the streets mentioned in these Regulations, they could do so with ease even if both sides of the roads were blocked by parked vehicles.
The hon. Gentleman has not considered at all the theatre situation. He must not believe that this is a case of rich Americans living at the Savoy, or the Ritz, who hire Rolls Royce cars and go to the theatre with a chauffeur, dressed rather as the hon. Gentleman is himself, with a shirt front from which in the words of Kipling, "the lights in the roof are reflected with more than all the Emperor's splendour" This is a matter of a large number of visiting French people, and Belgians, and Dutch, as well as Americans, living in the suburbs with friends and borrowing their friends' cars, or hiring cars to come into the theatres during Festival year, probably after having been to the Festival itself earlier in the day. Where are they to find space to park in order to go to the theatre? All these streets which are near to the theatres are sealed off by this fatuous Order—Glasshouse Street, Windmill Street, Upper St. Martin's Lane, Sackville Street, and all the streets where,

traditionally and for years past, people have been able to park without doing the slightest damage to anybody or interfering in any way with the traffic that flows by night.
This is one of the poorest pieces of legislation that I have yet seen, and perhaps the Under-Secretary can reply again so that we may know whether these Regulations are to be permanent. It looks to me, in spite of what he has said of the likelihood of the Commissioner coming along in a few weeks and changing them, that nothing will be done. These notices will prove to be complete nonsense by what we experience from visitors to the exhibitions, but they will remain in fact. The Festival will be used as a means of retaining a prohibition which ought never to have been. We shall arrive at the end of the summer months, and nobody will have the enterprise or the courage to cut down the restrictions.
I know the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport too well. Once he has introduced a restrictive type of Order, limiting the freedom of the people in matters of transport, he allows it to remain; never does he give greater freedom. Before the House decides whether to divide or not on these extraordinary and inappropriate Regulations, may we be told whether they are to remain permanently?
I deplore that the Government should think so little of the general experience of the Londoner in travelling about, and his desire to park his vehicle when amusing himself in this Festival year, that they should have brought these Regulations forward; and I hope that the Minister of Transport, not having spoken yet in this debate tonight, will rise and say that he is convinced by the arguments we have made and will, as a result, go back tomorrow to the Commissioner of Police and ask him to think again.

10.59 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I was hoping that the assurance of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in his concluding remarks, would have been sufficient. I would remind the noble Lord that when these Regulations were discussed here tonight, the objections were levelled, not against the main plan of the police, but to a very limited number of thoroughfares. The assurance


which the Under-Secretary gave appeared to me to meet this position adequately.
I do really want to stress the difficult problems which the police may have to meet in the next few months. It is really beside the point to urge that the police of London, who are handling this very great problem day by day, are inconsiderate towards the public needs and I was particularly pleased to hear the acknowledgment which the hon. Member made of the London police. We have, in consultations on this matter, received an assurance that in the light of experience it will be reviewed from time to time. It can only affect limited areas, and amendments, if they should be proved to be required, will not be difficult. If hon. Members themselves feel that the hardship or the inconvenience is limited to very small areas, I suggest that is no justification for rejecting these safeguards which the police consider as essential under these circumstances.
I can give the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), a very definite assurance that these are not permanent Regulations, but are quite clearly to cover the Festival period. Whether the period each day will be justified or not, we shall see later on. As far as permanent regulations are concerned, these will not be of that character. I hope this debate has accomplished its main purpose and I hope we shall not unduly cause difficulty for the police whilst effectively expressing our views as Members of this House. The Under-Secretary of State has given a very adequate assurance to meet the purpose of the debate.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will understand that hon. Members on this side do not wish to raise any difficulty for the police force of the Metropolis at this time. My difficulty is a humble one about which I invite the right hon. Gentleman's assistance. Has he power as the matter now stands to revoke regulations which he makes? I quite understand he has power to make regulations for special occasions or at special times only, but I have not heard in the answer of the Under-Secretary or the right hon. Gentleman any reply to

the point raised by my hon. Friend about the question of how these Regulations are to be brought to an end, and I do consider respectfully that before we are asked to give due effect to them tonight, we should know the answer to that problem. For myself, it may be my ignorance, but I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's power is to revoke Regulations. If he has no power to revoke them, is not it wasteful to enact regulations for a special occasion if he will have to come back to this House with another special provision, in order to revoke them at the end of the Festival or the special period? I am merely asking for information.

11.4 p.m.

Squadron Leader Cooper: I am sure the Under-Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman cannot expect us to be satisfied with the limited assurance he has given us tonight. I took the trouble of seeing both the Minister of Transport and the Under-Secretary 24 hours before I raised this matter in debate, and I went so far as to indicate to them yesterday the streets in which I was particularly concerned. I also indicated to the Under-Secretary this evening, as well, the four main points of criticism which I had against these Regulations. I cannot think that I could have gone to greater lengths to apprise the Government of our main points of criticism or give them more adequate time for consideration.
But the Under-Secretary has given tonight a totally inadequate answer to the points raised. He has merely indicated that at some date, if the weather happens to keep cold or maybe if it gets warmer, he may come down with some form of amendment to these Regulations. He has not indicated at all that the main burden of our criticism—the extension of the parking prohibition after 6.30 in the evening—is to be reconsidered. I indicated that we accepted the view that in many of these streets there should be an extension; but I indicated also streets where such an extension of the prohibition is not justified at all. I regret very much that the Under-Secretary has not found it in his power to give the House any assurance whatever that the matter will receive more sympathetic consideration than it has been given tonight.

Question put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING, BEXLEY

Motion made, and Question proposed: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Royle]

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Edward Heath: The subject I wish to raise tonight is what is known in the technical jargon of the town and country planners as the "overspill of population." This is a problem which arises when you have a long housing list in a borough and room to build only a small number of new houses. That is the position in Bexley at the moment. It is also the position in many surrounding local authorities in north-west Kent—Beckenham, Bromley, Chislehurst and Sidcup, Crayford, Erith, and Penge. It is a problem of particular interest to local authorities not only in north-west Kent, but in north London and many other parts of the country.
The reason I am raising this subject is that in the division I represent many of my constituents are realising that there is little possibility of their being rehoused or given housing accommodation within their own borough, and therefore they are extremely anxious to know where they are going to be able to find new homes. May I put the position on the housing list? I hope my figures will agree broadly with any figures the Parliamentary Secretary may have. It is difficult to get complete accuracy, but if we work on broad lines I think we shall be able to agree.
On the last count there were 5,000 applicants for houses. We have to take into consideration also some 350 families in requisitioned property to whom the council recognise a responsibility, together with approximately 150 families living in hutments which must in time be cleared; they were built as prefabricated houses in the first world war. That gives a total of approximately

5,500 people. But that list does not include any who have not got a residential qualification before 1936, so it is really looking at the problem in its minimum scale. The total number who can be provided for, taking those under construction at the moment and the room which remains for new development, is approximately 1,500. That leaves a surplus of families who cannot be housed in their own borough—the overspill—of some 4,000. At one time the Minister calculated that the number was approximately 3,000. I shall not differ with him over that number, which was a very general calculation. Let us say the number is approximately 3,000 to 4,000.
Now I turn to the building position. Apart from those under construction, there is room for another 950 houses. That will involve the clearance of the hutments I have mentioned. It is therefore a pressing problem; if you have only room to build another 950 houses the problem becomes an immediate one. In 1950 the borough council built right up to its quota. In addition, the Minister was very co-operative and gave us an additional quota of some 130 houses, with a proportionate number of private licences.
The programme for 1951 is already well ahead, and it is hoped that the Minister will be equally co-operative this year in extending the quota as a reward for the efficiency of the local authority. That means that if progress is continued at that rate, within three to four years the area will be built up, and I think the Minister will agree that it means a pressing problem for the local authority.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present, the House was adjourned at Seventeen Minutes past Eleven o'Clock till Tomorrow.